Misplaced Pages

User talk:Δ

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Δ (talk | contribs) at 15:02, 4 January 2016 (→User talk:Elvey/169.230.155.123: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:02, 4 January 2016 by Δ (talk | contribs) (→User talk:Elvey/169.230.155.123: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Use of your talk page

Δ, I thought you should be made aware that use of your talk page while blocked is a grey area of the project. As a result, it's sort of a wild wild west. There are plenty of administrators who would gladly block talk page access of a blocked user at the first inkling of misuse. There are some who think the only use should be for placing unblock requests. Since you are indefinitely banned from the project per the Arbitration Decision, and any appeal has to be run through ArbCom, an unblock request here on this talk page would likely be seen as out of process and immediately rejected. With that, there are some (as above) would would construe any use of your talk page as abusive.

Note that this is not without precedent; See User talk:Reguyla, where a six month block was reset with talk page access removed for a user who was extensively using ping, as you are beginning to do here. The project does not yet know what to do with ping for users who are blocked/banned. There is no guidance, no policy, no formal precedent.

You are in a very grey area of ban/block enforcement. Given there are so many who want (and got) your proverbial wiki-head on a platter, it is a matter of time before someone (or multiple someones) among that group demand your talk page access be removed. I strongly, strongly urge you to heavily restrict your use of ping only to contact people who have contacted you about a particular subject. Using ping to initiate discussion with someone is very likely to lead to a ban of your talk page editing restrictions.

Best regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I share Hammersoft's concerns. It would be great to see your ban lifted and I am hopeful that an appeal of the ban would succeed. Please consider initiating such an appeal at your earliest convenience. I wish the very best for you and look forward to your return. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I am getting tired of seeing tools/requests go unanswered and users frustrated because they dont get the assistance that they need. It may be a grey area but it helps users so I will continue to provide assistance where I can. (See the section above for a new useful tool) I have been doing similar work for quite some time thru others having them leave notes in discussions for me. If users need/want a tool I will be more than happy to provide it, I am not making useless or harassing pings so arbcom shouldnt have an issue with it. I will file an appeal again when I can. ΔT 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
When you say: "I will file an appeal again when I can." are you saying that you have once filed an appeal and been declined? Is there any way your appeal can be done on Misplaced Pages? Perhaps you can request a modification of your sanction to allow the appeal on Misplaced Pages where interested users can participate. I hope the committee knows for a fact that there are users, like myself, who are very interested in seeing your ban set aside and your editing privileges restored.--John Cline (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Active editor count

@Carrite: in regards to that report it should be fairly doable depending on how you want the data structured. ΔT 20:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Same structure as the Most Edits list would work. User, count of edits in month — making sure to include IP editors and registered editors both, if possible. If the number can be broken down further into mainspace edits vs. non-mainspace edits, that would also be useful — a full breakdown into the various myriad types of edits would be perhaps more useful still. The main thing is something that allows the 3300 or so Very Active Editors to be identified each month, along with the next couple thousand who just missed the list. Thanks for your interest in this, getting WMF to move has been fruitless... Carrite (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have no idea if these lists can be retroactively generated, but rolling things back 12 months would make meaningful comparison possible. Thinking up another dream item for structure, if there was a field for "position last month" on the list, that would also be interesting, allowing big increases and decreases to be identified, sort of like putting a bullet next to rapid movers on the Billboard charts... Carrite (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And I don't know if there is a mechanism to identify "declared gender," but that would be a massively useful field. So would a field for "Date of Account Creation." Carrite (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I can run the report with mainspace totals and non-mainspace counts. Beyond that I would need clearer instructions on what constitutes other values. I can run retroactive counts however deleted edits will require some thought. I can pull gender information if its declared in a user's preferences. As for user registration, if an account was created after the introduction of user registration date, I can include that, however if the account was created prior to that, it uses the date of their first edit. (Not %100 accurate but kinda close). ΔT 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: another angle that might be cleaner is to look at mainspace only edits. This would cut down on excess non-content clutter. ΔT 02:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Date of first edit is better than date of account creation anyway, probably. Mainspace Edits as one field and Non-Mainspace Edits as another would be the most useful division of total edit count. Declared gender, if you can get that, would be golden. Even if there were no retroactive lists, a series of monthly lists starting from current-month would be extremely useful. Let me know if you need help with an ArbCom ban appeal. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Another field for Career Edits to Date would be handy as well. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.CE.94_talk_page. The general interpretation of banned users talk page has been it's use should be limited to ban appeal, continued use for other reasons is likely to result in loss of talk page access. Given that Carrite has email enabled, perhaps you could just communicate that way? NE Ent 14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been fairly busy recently and haven't had a lot of time to follow up with the appeal process. I started this on April 16th with an email attempting to open discussion with arbcom, between then and the final email from arbcom (June 29th) all I received where 2 emails that denied my appeal (even though I hadn't actually made an appeal and was trying to talk with arbcom about what was needed for a successful appeal) I responded to their email on June 29th and have yet to get an answer. As you can see from the section above I am looking to resolve this but a wall of silence from arbcom isn't being productive. ΔT 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not just draft your appeal right here? If it's good I'm sure 150 watchers would transcribe into arbcom space, and if it's not so good you're likely to get constructive feedback on how to improve it, and thereby increase your chances of success. NE Ent 18:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: see above, I know what I think the issues are, and that arbcom disagrees, I do not want to have the debate between what I think vs what others think because its just pure drama that will go nowhere. However what I am unsure of is what they believe the issues are that need addressed. I have asked them directly, and posted here, with very little actual progress. If you know of any other avenues for progress please let me know because I am at a loss since I have tried both the approved/suggested route of contacting arbcom and trying to open discussions with the community. ΔT 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Δ on this. If Δ decides to post an appeal on this page rather than through official channel, ArbCom could ding him for all sorts of made-up reasons like not following the rules of arbitration case, dismissing the case as not filed by appealer, or revoke the use of talkpage for "inappropriate use" (notice the quotation marks). If the direct path of communication is met with silence, do you believe an indirect path would actually lead to a better outcome? OhanaUnited 21:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually I do, but reviewing applicable policies and actions I'm getting contradictory indications as to the proper course of action; unfortunately I'm out of wiki-time and unable to sort them out. NE Ent 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not want to have the debate between what I think vs what others think because its just pure drama that will go nowhere. indicates to me (personally) that you're simply not in a place where pursuing an appeal it likely to successful. The appeal would be between you and the committee, and if you haven't reached the frame of mind where you're willing to demonstrate sufficient maturity to ignore ad hominem attacks. Sorry I can't be of more assistance, I truly wish you the best in real life at least. NE Ent 01:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: I think you miss-understood that comment. I am fairly used to being the target of both ad hominem, and blatant personal attacks, neither are really an issue. The comment in question is a reference to the fact that ArbCom and I are on different pages in regards to what the issues are and that I have given up in futility of having the issues I believe to be at fault addressed. The only way progress will be made is to identify what ArbCom believes the issues to be and address those. (Basically we need to get on the same page, which realistically means that I need to move to ArbComs page, but before I do that I need to know what their page is) ΔT 04:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (to be clear; not addressing this at any one person) Good grief. Drop the sticks and walk away. People are getting upset because Δ is making use of his talk page to support his tools which are still widely used? If it offends you so deeply, then STOP READING THIS PAGE. It's not hard folks. Really! Δ is not using his talk page abusively, but constructively. Gah, you people are fighting over what color the walls of his prison cell should be...grey or gray. If he uses his talk page abusively, then fine. Otherwise, go find something useful to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Appeal

I contacted ARBCOM on April 16, it’s taken no less than a month between responses from them about my appeal. I tried to start a discussion with them in in order to identify the issues that they think need to be addressed before I can return to editing. I am fairly certain that we are not on the same page, so in order for things to get resolved the first step is getting on the same page with the root issues. The basic conversation resulted in a stonewall and zero productive progress. It’s now been 44 days since my last email to ARBCOM, and I haven’t heard anything yet from that. I want to get the issues addressed and a roadmap setup for a resolution. Since ARBCOM seems to be ignoring/stonewalling any attempt I am now reaching out to the community. ΔT 18:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I posted a link to this request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User:.CE.94. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that you are entitled to an answer. This is construed by the allowance in your original ban stating that you could submit an appeal after 1 year and numerous guidelines that discourage non-responsiveness to questions proffered in good faith. I have never enjoyed the provisions that place these appeals beyond The Community's purview. I find tolerating them more difficult each time I see the practice used as a "convenient veil" forotherwise "poor conduct"; much more so because the conduct being veiled is inherently that of the precise leadership echelon which ought to comprise more transparency than perhaps all others. I join Δ in calling The Community to a mighty quorum; to demand change in this regard. If as many do, as I suspect will, respond to this call, then I am prepared to stand as Δ's sole ally; in calling this spade, a spade.--John Cline (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Beta. I am sorry about how things ended for you here and I would love to see a new beginning for you at Misplaced Pages. Chillum 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC) (Was once known as HighInBC)
  • I'm also looking forward to your succesful return. Perhaps the best way to move things along would be a request at WP:ARCA to, as per Remedy 3 of the decision in your case, allow the community to review the plan you have submitted to the Committee, along with Arbritator comments. Nowhere in Remedy 3 does it say include provisions that allow the Committee to refuse or decline presenting your so-called "plan" to the community -- in fact, my reading of the remedy is that the Committe is compelled to present such a plan to the community, and while a reasonable delay is of course expected, several months certainly does not seem diligent nor respectful of the Committee's role. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope I'm being overly pedantic but I fear that requisite phrasing like "prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban" is used to nullify the dependent clauses by simply deciding that no modification is desired. The Committee can not be held to a requirement that doesn't exist unless or until they themselves desire effecting a modification. Am I wrong about this?--John Cline (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I read that as the Committee reserving the right to comment prior to the application of any community consensus that would modify the ban... but "commenting" is the expression of worded notes and observations, and that is not what seems to be happening here, which would fall closer to "declining to present Beta's plan to the community altogether" from my perspective. At least that's what I gather from Beta's post, which seems to contradict somewhat Seraphim's post on WT:AC. An ARCA request could also clarify the current position of the committee on Beta's appeal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Salvidrim. The strength of your conviction permeates the powerful prose you have given. Together, they show mine to be "utterly pedantic", and they expose the flawed approach that I used to achieve the wrong answer I was plagued to achieve. I, therefore, am glad; to vacate my entire afore given comment, and instead, to give my entire support to every elucidation generated within your comment, because I believe your information is both useful, and entirely correct. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In order to make progress I would like to know what specific actionable points the community thinks are an issue. Extremely broad or vague statements have proven to be impossible to work with feasibly since interpretations vary to a high degree. I know what I think the issues are, however I am not re-hashing that issue, and I know the communities view holds different views on the issues at hand. I am opening the floor up for input so that discourse and progress can be made. ΔT 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Alright, let's be very direct: As recently as last year (July 2014), you blatantly lied repeatedly to the community's face (on WP:AN) and deceptively used a sockpuppet account, even going as far as to referring to "Betacommand" in the third person and pointing out "the differences" in behaviour. This demonstrated an egregious and severe lack of respect towards the community. The quality or desirability of your edits for the ultimate good of the project may be seen by some (myself included) as excusing some measure of misbehaviour, but refusing to show honesty when confronted and deliberately engaging in a campaign of deception and hypocrisy cannot be seen as anything but total disregard for the community you now wish to become a part of again. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Salvidrim: That wasn't the best way to handle the issue. It was a proof of concept/demonstration for a point that I have made in the past, and said issue was promptly dismissed/ignored. At the time I thought it was the only viable way to make my point. (It was a WP:POINTy action). I would rather not re-hash the argument that I was proving at the time because it will just cloud this discussion and probably cause a flame war which I have no interest in participating in. Had I admitted to who I was at the time it would have invalidated the results, and would have led to an insta-ban with zero chance of any other outcome. As I stated, with hind sight it wasn't the best choice. ΔT 13:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. <placeholder issue>
  3. <placeholder issue>

<crickets> --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that there doesn't appear to be any sort of response at all since this brief note. To address your question above, Δ, about what issues/concerns the community might have regarding your return, as far as I am concerned I have no concerns: it's been over three years since your ban. I think that's more than enough time to allow you a chance to return and re-join the community. Acalamari 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That some people want Δ to remain banned shouldn't be propped to outweigh the many more who want to see him given another chance; a second chance in fact. Unfortunately, the community seems complacent when it comes to demanding Arbcom accountability; lacking both the will and means of enforcing required transparency. Along with the secret deliberations I mentioned above, I have also loathed the Arbcoms refusal to acknowledge third party standing or to hear a "next friend" or "friend of the body" brief. Perhaps some remember how quickly things went south for Penyulap when he or she became passionate regarding the lack of third party status. I wish I had a quarter of his passion and about a tenth of his guts, and that I wasn't myself, "so incredibly tired".--John Cline (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Δ has been given far more than a 'second chance' in the past. Any appeal is going to have to address that. Δ has also been the victim (and I do mean 'victim') or extremely poorly worded sanctions that effectively made adherence impossible. Correcting the latter is impossible; it was tried and failed. Addressing the former is an absolute must in any appeal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The next step is to withdraw your talk page access: Appeals of remedies imposed by the Arbitration Committee must be appealed directly to the committee itself, not to BASC. That also means not on your talk page. There is no reason to set a new precedent through WP:IAR and in your case there is no consensus to overturn an Arbitration Committee ruling (which can't be done by the community and/or its admins anyway). I will take up your matter with Arbcom in an endeavour to obtain a clear ruling. In the meantime if you continue to make appeals or conduct 'business as usual' through your talk page, don't be surprised if TPA is withdrawn and if it does, you won't be helping the situation and the Committee will probably just stick to its guns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This issue has been answered already. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#Δ talk page.
"Result: Betacommand is breaking a rule, but the rule prevents him from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, so policy demands that we not pay attention. Stop harassing someone for helping."
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I have emailed the Arbitration Committee with a request that they make a clear statement regarding the status of your ban and of your appeals. My interest in this matter is purely procedural and without prejudice to the final outcome in which I have no vested interest whatsoever. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have no dog in this fight, and no opinion as to whether the ban should be lifted and/or modified. I am, however, concerned when I see a statement like "It’s now been 44 days since my last email to ARBCOM, and I haven’t heard anything yet from that" posted on 12 August 2015 and see that the issue is still open on 28 September. Please keep us posted if you get a response. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: As of last check its been 90 days, 22 hours since my last email to ArbcCom, which has yet to be answered. ΔT 01:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung, Guy Macon: I still stand by my August 12th/13th comments above that the wording of the Remedy does not seem to justify the committee refusing the present Δ's appeal to the community, and that an ARCA request might resolve this one and for all (either by making ArbCom process the appeal or by a motion amending the remedy to allow ArbCom droit de regard on an appeal. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Given the last entry in the block log is the closing arbitration clerk explicitly restoring talk page access, I think it's reasonable to assume the committee wanted delta to have talk page access. NE Ent 01:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

90 days without an answer?

I think we can put the talk page access question to bed now, Can we discuss the claim of 90 days without an answer?

I have not searched onwiki, and some of the interaction may have been by email and invisible to me, but this sort of thing often turns out to be one o the following:

  • A legitimate question that never answered (perhaps on purpose, perhaps by oversight).
  • An answer was given, but the person asking won't accept the answer.

I am not claiming that either of the above does or does not apply here, just that these are fairly common.

Δ is probably in the best position to answer the above. Δ, could you list all responses you have received through any channel, including non-answers, automated responses, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the email conversation:
  • April 16, 2015
    Initial email attempt to initiate discussion about appealing.
  • May 8, 2015
    Response with serious factual errors from ArbCom (claiming a year is too recent to consider an appeal)
  • May 8, 2015
    Rebuttal email asking for clarification on why a year is too recent, and again attempting to open discussions on identifying and addressing the issues.
  • June 29, 2015
    ArbCom semi-template denial about filing an appeal without addressing the issues. (Which are not stated, just vague references)
  • Jun 29, 2015
    Response email about being stonewalled, and lack of specific actionable points to be addressed, and questioning if arbcom actual plans to give me a fair chance at appealing or if this would be in essence a pocket veto on all appeals.
  • Silence

As a side note I had to basically nag ArbCom members on IRC after a month in each case to get any response in the first place. ΔT 19:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the May 8, 2015 entry ("Response with serious factual errors from ArbCom (claiming a year is too recent to consider an appeal)") a year since what? I can't find any block, ban, appeal, SPI, etc, that is recent enough to qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

User:Δ. In good faith I have undertaken something on your behalf. However, if you don't calm down and be patient, I will carry out my warning to block your use of your talk page. Your persistence is possibly not indicative of the attitude your supporters would like you come back to Misplaced Pages with. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the questions I am asking a problem? I will be glad to hold off for whatever period of time you think best. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung, I'm not sure I understand why you consider it necessary to continue warning about blocking talk page access; Δ's replies to questions here have solely been calm and he is not disrupting, trolling or purposely wasting anyone's time. He was asked to present his side of the situation; it doesn't seem fair to me to warn him about re-blocking when he is responding to people (in fact, I seem to recall many of the problems from years ago stemmed from Δ not responding to people). Acalamari 10:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't see how prolonging this discussion is helping. Up until now I have no dog in this fight, but I'm beginning to think that in spite of my good faith effort to obtain a response from Arbcom that I should now start taking sides with our policies, which means, I suppose, that I am no longer neutral because I support them. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Given that there was an ANI discussion about this issue which you contributed to, that was closed against your opinion, any administrative action that you take will be considered involved. ΔT 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur both with Acalamari and Δ. Questions are being asked of Δ, and he is responding to them. I fail to see a problem. There is no abuse of this talk page happening here, and it has directly to do with his appeal. This warning is out of line, and as others have noted there is a potential issue of WP:INVOLVED here. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am neither a "supporter" or a "nonsupporter" of Δ, but I am a supporter of transparency in all situations where there isn't a good reason to keep things secret. Here I see one person, Δ, giving their side of a conflict, and no place anywhere onwiki where I can see any indication that there are any arguments on the other side -- they all appear to be invisible to me, having happened via email. I think they should be open, or that we should get some indication that there is a particular reason for them being closed other than the convenience of escaping scrutiny. The threat to shut down this open discussion after the recent ANI finding is especially troubling. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that Kudpung remove this page from their watchlist if it is bothering them. The discussion at ANI came to the clear conclusion that no action is required on this talk page. I see nothing new since then to justify fresh action. If you want to take sides with our policies you can start with WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. The formal allows use to ignore the activity on this talk page, and the latter came to the conclusion that we should.

You went to the community for their opinion and you got it, if you don't agree with it then just move on. Don't make a cowboy block that goes against the clear consensus that has formed, it will only be reversed with a serving of trout. HighInBC 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Plan 01

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Remedies contains the following:

Community sanctions superseded
The Arbitration Committee determines that the existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
Passed 12 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Betacommand banned
Betacommand is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year.
Passed 10 to 6, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Appeal of ban
After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban. The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.
Passed 15 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reason why Δ should not post the plan mentioned above here (and possibly by email as well) rather than by email only? Δ, would this be agreeable to you? In addition, would you like those who are interested enough to watch this page to critique the plan and offer suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I have a few concerns
  1. ArbCom, to date, has failed to put forth a clear response on how it intends on handling this. While not entirely mute, it seems apparent they do not wish to deal with this issue. According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions, ArbCom "may accept or decline" an appeal at their discretion. Their apparent intention to do neither is problematic.
  2. Only ArbCom can remove the ban. Given that, only ArbCom can detail what it feels must be addressed in any plan. Therefore, ArbCom must lay out what it feels needs to be addressed. Anything short of that, and Δ is very likely to not address all of what ArbCom feels is important, and therefore the appeal will be denied.
  3. If Δ posts the plan here, then it will become a free for all between Δ's haters and supporters, of which there are many in both camps. Thus, if the plan is posted here, discussion regarding it MUST be moderated, else it will be futile.
  4. Any plan that does not involve the community, regardless of the fact that only ArbCom can overturn the ban, is very likely to be heavily disputed. A microcosm of this began to evolve at the recent AN/I discussion.
  5. Any plan put forth by ArbCom absolutely MUST have a plan in place to deal with the lynch mob that will come after Δ. Such mob will make it impossible for Δ to edit productively.
  • All of this falls as dominoes from point #1. If ArbCom refuses to respond (Δ's very valid 'pocket veto' scenario), the only other option is a direct appeal to Jimbo which will very likely go unheard. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    The first thing I did was was attempt #2, Find out what ArbCom thinks needs addressed. To which I have been nothing concrete except for very broad and vague generalizations. ΔT 20:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to go to a meeting, so I will respond at length later. Preliminary thoughts:

  • I think we can have a moderated discussion here. In theory, Δ could moderate (anyone can remove anything other than certain notices from their talk page), but there is an obvious COI with that. Δ could assign a moderator (I could do it, or we could ask another WP:DRN volunteer) with, of course the option of firing the moderator if he goes crazy.
  • If arbcom doesn't want to say what needs to be addressed, we can guess. If we get it wrong, the shit would hit the fan if they rejected it instead of saying what we got wrong and allowing us to redo it.
  • If (and only if), Δ is willing to edit productively while following the letter and spirit of what the community expects, I am willing to personally pick off any members of any "lynch mob" that tries to harass Δ at ANI. But if Δ's behavior is such that they have a valid point, Δ will get no help from me.

Gotta go, More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

    • The primary issue with the last set of restrictions was that they where too broad, anything that is a "pattern of edits" was prohibited. However you will reach a entropic point where enough data points exist that any pattern can be established. (Oh, he made 10 edits where he added a comma, that is a pattern and thus should be blocked for performing a pattern of edits.) If a clearly defined and explicit rule is given I follow it. (I was banned from any edit enforcing NFCC and I didn't make such edits. I wasn't banned from the topic, and made quite a few contributions and helped quite a few people with questions on the topic. Yet that wasn't enough for some of the people who stalk my edits. I made a post to my talk page about one of the reports that I run on the toolserver/labs and was blocked for violating the enforcement ban, even though I had not made an edit enforcing NFCC. The block was quickly overturned as being invalid, but it highlights how aggressively some people try to find faults in what I do). If we can come to a reasonable set of restrictions that are clearly defined and delineated there shouldnt be any issues. ΔT 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • With respect, brown sticky stuff hitting a rotating device will have no effect on ArbCom. They will not care. As for the mob, there needs to be something definitive from ArbCom about how to handle people who are aggressive, harrassing or insulting towards Δ. Like, some version of discretionary sanctions with one warning towards belligerents and then a significant block on second error. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ArbCom has a long track record of handling disputes by sanctioning an editor at the center of a dispute, even if that editor is not the source of the problem, but the people making complaints. ArbCom has been informed of anchoring cognitive bias before in regards to case naming, but there response is they are above such cognitive bias. This, despite the fact that studies have shown that even those who are aware of the potential bias can't avoid having that bias. See Anchoring#Difficulty_of_avoiding_anchoring. There is a significant body of editors who will make complaints against Δ, and will be quite vociferous in doing so. So, we will have one editor at the center of a dispute, and a body of editors making complaints. It's all about Δ, therefore ArbCom will go after Δ. Given ArbCom's track record, it is highly likely Δ will be blocked/banned again once the complaints (valid or not) start rolling in. I'm laying this out to highlight that any plan put forward absolutely must deal with the body of editors that will come for Δ. A lack of a plan to handle this will most emphatically doom any attempt for Δ to return to editing. For example, if there were a plan that said something like "Restricted to one account, 1RR on NFCC enforcement, no violations of wp:civil, no automated editing (however that is defined, <cough>)" there will be a large number of editors who will register complaints against one or more of these restrictions. Those complaints will pile up, and whether they are valid or not they will be the pyre on which Δ is burned.
  • In my personal opinion, there are certain editors who must be placed on an interaction ban with Δ (and vice versa). Such bans should be supported by prior evidence of poor behavior, construed broadly, by these editors towards Δ. To not do this, or something akin, would be ArbCom throwing fresh meat out the window to a pack of ravenous hyenas and saying "have at it!" --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Seconded on the notion that some IBANs or equivalent need to be included; there were some editors that followed Δ far too closely and were ready to jump on any mistake they did after the first ArbCom case. Δ would need to be watched, yes, but by those without any stake in the matter. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • At this point, it seems doubtful they will respond. They were informed 12 August 2015 about an appeal being placed on this talk page. One arbitrator responded then, only to indicate e-mails had been received and responded to. No arbitrator, nor even an arbcom clerk, has posted to this talk page in more than a year. Basically, their response has been 'yep, we received it' followed by utter silence. It appears the pocket veto is in full effect. The only option after this is a direct appeal to Jimbo. The only grounds I can see that even beginning to get a reading is that ArbCom is shirking their self described duty. ArbCom should not be attempting to sweep this under the rug via a pocket veto, and neither should they attempt to dismiss this appeal with a wave of the hand. I can understand them being busy. That would excuse a week or two's delay in response. But at this point, they are well past that and beyond excuse. Contrast their demands in the past (on unrelated cases) that editors have a window within which to respond. Do as they say, not as they do apparently. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. They had 90 days to respond. I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to attempt to put together a plan right here, get community approval of the plan, and present it to them for a yes/no vote with the option of them asking for specific changes and us coming back and trying to make the plan better. This is standard procedure for resolving disputes outside of Misplaced Pages, and I think it could work here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do wish you all the best. Beta always treated me well. (which is the main reason I started WP:FIXNF) — Ched :  ?  19:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I am hoping that, because of my reputation as volunteer mediator at WP:DRN that any plan that Δ presents that has my stamp of approval on it will get a response . One thing that you (Hammersoft) can do is to tone down the arbcom criticism. I am not saying that it is or is not valid (I have my opinions on that that I will keep to myself) but I can say that it isn't helpful in this situation. So, are we all on board with helping putting together a plan as called for by the arbom findings and with doing that here? I am going to assume yes and start in a new section. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not criticize ArbCom just to criticize. Indeed, ArbCom is part of the problem here for a number of reasons, not least of which is their current pocket veto. I am hopeful we can make headway, but I also think Ched is right; all of this is a moot point without ArbCom participating. So far, they have not shown any interest despite prior invitations to do so. I brought up the point of anchoring bias because it is extremely on point; anything we do here is going to be focused on Δ, and as a direct result the table is decidedly tilted against Δ at the outset. We must recognize this, even though ArbCom has shown a lack of interest in doing so in the past. If there's to be any chance of this working, the table must be level. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Plan 02

This section is for putting together a plan per the following arbcom finding:

After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban.

Comments that don't directy address the above should go in the continuing thread under "The Plan 01".

First we need to agree (with Δ having the final say) on what we will be asking for. In general, I am against any sanctions that are imposed because of years-old behavior that has not been repeated recently, or predictions of future behavior that are not based upon recent past behavior. Based on these two principles, I think that any interaction bans, blocks, etc. should be applied only after there is specific recent behavior that violates Misplaced Pages policy. This applies to Δ and to these theoretical miscreants who some here are predicting will complain about Δ no matter what.

Furthermore, given the above basic principles, I would need to hear a compelling argument before I supported any restrictions on Δ other than the normal Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that we all have to face. I see no reason why arbcom shouldn't lift all arbcom and community restrictions and let ANI apply new restrictions if there is any new misbehavior that justifies such restrictions. This would also solve the issue of poorly-worded restrictions and disputes about how the restrictions do or do not apply. It would also get arbcom out of the enforcement business and give ANI another chance with everyone on all sides having learned some valuable lessons.

All of this, of course, assumes that Δ is willing to make a convincing statement that he (she?) understands what led to the community restrictions in the first place (which, BTW is not the same as agreeing with them or agreeing with the assumption they are based upon) and making a public commitment to not do those sort of things again. If Δ is OK with this, we can start on that once we have agreed on what we are asking for.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • (1) I think one condition that should be considered is that Δ is constrained to one account, and consents to have routine checkusers done without there needing to be suspicion of there being other accounts in use. This is based on past behavior dating back years (if need be, I can cite the block evading account), and on recent behavior as we are here now at this date due to User:Werieth having been blocked a bit over a year ago and being detected as a Δ sock. (2) As evidenced by abject failure and ArbCom's recognition of the inability of the community to develop workable sanctions, I disagree that denizens of WP:AN/I should be left to apply new restrictions. The failed wordings of the restrictions they put in place are part of the reason we got to where we are today. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Either Δ is ready to follow all Misplaced Pages policies or he isn't. If he isn't, the ban should stay in place. If he is, then our sockpuppetry policy is one of the policies that he is now willing to follow and there should be no restriction or scrutiny that the rest of us are not subject to. "this is based on past behavior dating back years" should not matter if Δ says he won't do it again and has not done it again in the last year. We need to assume good faith and allow Δ a fresh start without arbitrarily turning a one-year-sanction into a multi-year sanction when Arbcom only imposed a one-year sanction.
As for ANI, again we need to assume good faith. Just because some here think ANI did a poor job last time doesn't mean they will do a poor job next time. Also, we need to assume that Δ has learned his lesson and won't violate Misplaced Pages's policies this time, leaving ANI nothing to do in this case.
Δ, could you weigh in here, please? Tell us whether there is going to be a repeat of the sort of thing that got multiple people upset in 2012 or whether things are going to be different this time around. I know you are willing to accept reasonable additional restrictions, but I am not. Not if they are based upon behavior from over a year ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Sorry for the slow responses life is kind of hectic at the moment. I really hope to avoid the drama of the past, as I dont want the headache's or stress involved in those flame wars. I can post a more detailed and flushed out statement but it will take me a few days to write up and review the statement. ΔT 12:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, there is absolutely no way the community will simply accept a fresh start in this case. As to AN/I writing sanctions, it won't work. Good faith was assumed, it failed, they tried to fix it, and failed again. There is no reason to suppose they'll somehow get it right this time. This is precisely why ArbCom voided the community restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree with Hammersoft here, based primarily on how the rest of the community (those that were not following Δ rigorously) reacted in subsequent ANI/Arbcom cases. The community appears to lack trust in Δ using automated tools of his own design without review, even if the work being done by those tools is within policy. This is in part that there were points that Δ had pushed the use of their tools beyond what policy would normally allow, but also due to how vague the automated tools wording was on the last ARbCom case that led to edge cases being tested by Δ's detractors, which the community subsequently agreed were problems under ArbCom's decision. (See the same thing about Δ having used their talk page for matters beyond appeals planning that all this current discussion came up on). While I'm sure there's some that would AGF that Δ's condition for appeal is recognizing that misuse of automated tools will likely ban them again and thus they would take more care in using them in the future, I very much doubt that global consensus would agree to that, and fully expect some type of language is going to be necessary regarding Δ and automated tools. Same with staying to a single account due to the Werieth issue. If we can avoid those, great, but I'm being realistic here and fully expect both are going to be necessary to even begin to discuss this at a large consensus issue. But at the same time, at least with automated editing, we know what failures in the existing language caused, and can avoid vagueness next time. --MASEM (t)
I agree with Masem and Hammersoft. The prehistory of Δ's case is too complex with too many community restrictions and political constraints for them to be suddenly erased in favour of a clean start. Masem's suggestions are a good starting point, although I am not sure if we can really avoid vagueness in any new conditions. Vagueness has a way of creeping into any document no matter how hard one tries and it only shows itself in actual practice, by which time it is already too late. Δρ.Κ.  16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We disagree as to who was testing the (vague, community-generated) restrictions. Nonetheless, if Δ is willing and able to acknowledge the need for restrictions, and is willing to draft proposed restrictions which he would be willing to follow, I, at least, would be willing to consider whether they deal with the (perceived) problems. Someone also has to deal with the question of whether there are any uninvolved admins who would have the technical ability to see whether he has violated his restrictions. I don't think there are.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the checkusers would agree to "routine" checks. Could someone ask them whether it would be allowed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(not wearing any hats while commenting) There appears to be some precedent with "routine" checks but they were a long time ago (I really mean it, like 2007 and 2009) and on known vandal accounts. Having said that, I think everyone (including ArbCom) agrees that Δ is not a vandal account. The question is, whether such routine checks are justified on a non-vandal account even if Δ agrees to it as part of the unban condition. Normally it would be Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) that provides on guidance and interpretation on the usage of checkuser. But given that AUSC is part of ArbCom and ArbCom is unwilling to communicate, that road goes to nowhere. And I highly doubt Ombudsman commission will step in because no infractions have been committed. So if a checkuser steps in and comment then great. But I'll be cautiously optimistic until that happens. OhanaUnited 21:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Some insight on community reaction?

Today, Reguyla was unblocked. I don't mean to delve into a discussion of the particulars of that case. I would like to note that people are reacting harshly to it. The most notable (in my opinion) example is this. There are others. This particular case generated a lot of heat. Δ being unblocked will generate a lot of heat. We need a plan in place to deal with this, should an unblock decision be made by ArbCom. If instead we unblock and try to deal with it as post-facto damage control, we'll get it wrong and it will go badly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If I recall, there was a common page that any complaints about Δ were to be funnelled to to avoid endless ANI drama (at that time). Fearing the reaction that Hammersoft suggests will happen if Δ is unblocked, I think we need to have that page up and ready again to contain any drama or complaints, but ideally with uninvolved admin oversight to avoid it being an attack forum against Δ. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Reguyla was unblocked, immediately violated the restrictions he had agreed to, and was blocked for a month. A classic case of WP:ROPE. I don't think Δ will do that, and if he does he will simply be reblocked.
So what do we do to move forward with this unblock request? What is the next step? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I very much want to avoid a ROPE situation. That's why I think we need some form of interaction bans, monitoring, something. As to what we do to move forward, I think we need a better plan in place before going anywhere off this talk page. ArbCom has shown themselves to be unwilling to do anything about it. So, asking them to come up with a plan will be fruitless. I think if we came up with a comprehensive plan and proposed it, ArbCom would be more willing to consider it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think Δ is going to hang himself no matter how much rope we give him, but the consensus is for some sort of restrictions and I am all about following the consensus even if I disagree with it. Even the most draconian restrictions would be better than a ban, and we could come back in a month or so and request lighter restrictions. I am going to start a new section now and make a concrete proposal.

Some precedent on ArbCom's inaction?

Just found this . Just food for thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Plan

Looking at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3#Findings of fact, the main issue seems to be repetitive minor edits, some or all of which have been performed via the use of automated or semi-automated editing tools.

I propose a multi-stage unblock with fewer restrictions at each stage as Δ shows a good-faith willingness to not do the things that made a bunch of people angry before.

Stage one: Unblock with an agreement to not make any repetitive edits. During this period Δ may create automated tools and post them on a subpage in his userspace, but would have to convince someone else to run them. I, Guy Macon, will agree to act as a mentor and run any automated tools that I think will help the encyclopedia under my account. I will also attempt to recruit others to help. I am an experienced assembly language programmer and can find my way around most high level computer languages, so I shouldn't have any trouble with whatever language Δ uses. (what do you use to make automated edits, Δ? Perl? Python? C?)

Stage two: Δ starts running automated tools himself with prior approval from the same volunteers who were running the tools for him in stage one.

Stage three: Δ starts running automated tools without prior approval, agreeing to do a short test run then stopping and waiting for approval before he lets it run on a large number of pages.

Stage four: Increase the allowable size of the test run so that many runs of automated edits are smaller that the limit. At this point approval will only be for runs that change a very large number of pages.

Stage five: No restrictions.

I am hoping that we can rapidly go through the stages as Δ proves himself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Masem's Plan

Recognizing that it would be nearly impossible for the community to accept the removal of the block without any additional restrictions or cavaets as you had proposed earlier, I think the following steps need to take place:

  • Establish the common terms typically used on returning blocked editors - Δ will use only one account or clear additional accounts before using those and avoiding any socking, etc. This can be done without involvement of the community.
  • Establish one or more uninvolved editors to be the point of contact for any issues related to Δ, making it clear these people should be notified first if there is an issue with Δ's editing. This can be done without involvement of the community. ETA: I do not expect us to have exactly named who these would be at this point, only establishing that we are going to have editors that will volunteer to oversee issues relating to Δ. Perhaps volunteers will step forward in the next step.
  • Prepare to discuss with the community on the matters of Δ, automated editing and any policy/topic areas of concerns, with expectations that we will need to write some of these out as part of the unblock request, presenting these case with the above two points already determined. This should be presented as a "what if", not as the final judgement on an unblock request. Will the community allow Δ to use automated tools without limits? Will there be immediate actions against mis-use of automated tools? Should Δ engage with NFC issues? I think we need to have the community as a whole involved here and not pretend this aren't going to be issues for some, but the goal would be to put as little restriction as possible on Δ but with any necessary remedies should Δ misuse this leeway (I don't think Δ would either, but I'm only going on my gut on this). As Δ will still be blocked during this, we need people to help relay messages from Δ to wherever that discussion occurs so that Δ can provide input where necessary so that the terms of the unblock are not something they cannot accept. The goal here is to find what the community would accept, and a plan going forward (for example, maybe a x-month period of no automated tools) following the unblock. In this we should also determine if there are any specific editors - still active - that need to have informal interaction bans with Δ based on past interactions. This is why determining if there are uninvolved admins willing to help mitigate issues others have with Δ is established first, so that we have a course of action to deal with those that have regularly detracted from Δ's work.
  • Write up those points as part of the unblock request as terms and conditions Δ will agree to.
  • Present that to the community at large to seek consensus to unblock.

It might take a bit of time, but this seems to be a fair way to proceed if we are not getting any feedback from ArbCom here. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks really good. My plan only covers the part you talk about in the third bullet point, and your plan is more comprehensive. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
My planned activity was to write up documentation for all of my existing tools, possibly create a few DBR's hosted within my userspace, and help with the NFCR backlog. ΔT 15:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect that any direct action by you on articles in support of our NFCC policy and NFC guideline are likely to be met with massive resistance and considerable heat. Comments on NFCR, yeah. Actual action is likely to be problematic. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • While I'll agree that there will be people complaining about Δ going near NFC, I think what Δ suggests - writing up what they would like to engage in going forward and seeing what "controls" the community would expect if they go beyond normal expected editor behavior - is a smart idea. While Δ should be free to work on anything they want, specific tasks of interest would help to figure out what terms the community would accept Δ's return. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Masem: & @Guy Macon: What is the next thing I can do to get this resolved? ΔT 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • From my end, I think the first step, you writing up what you plan to edit or plan to stay away from editing (with some awareness of how the community might react if you get involved in certain ways and hopefully purposely avoiding those sticky points) to lead as a proposal to the community to review. We'd (that it, someone like myself or Guy or such) can then write a preamble around that and possible other points as to present it formally. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Masem: What kind of time-frame do you think would be appropriate to draft up this proposal? I was thinking a 3-6 month plan myself. ΔT 19:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I would think 6 months would be good for a "detailed" plan at this point, in considering that your actions will likely be of heavy scrutiny during this period if the community accepts this. It's the idea that at the end of that 6 month period that we'd likely need to re-review and determine if you are able to engage more after that. The ideal goal here is that in time, you should have no limitations on what actions you can take compared to any other normal editor, and while it would be great to think that can done at the start, I know the community's reaction will require a step-wise approach. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#A special kind of archiving bot

@Rcsprinter123: Per request: https://tools.wmflabs.org/betacommand-dev/cgi-bin/afcr.py ΔT 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That works great! Rcsprinter123 (notify) 15:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thought for new report?

Hey. Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Database_reports#User_pages_of_inexistent_users if you would please. Could you write a report that lists userpages for users that do not exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is actually providing a little bit more of a challenge than I first thought due to the dataaset size. When you start comparing 26.5 million usernames with 13.7 million page titles you actually reach a point where the system cannot handle the amount of information. I have several ideas, and even a ticket filed in phabicator about how mediawiki stores the related data. Once I actually overcome the datatset size issue false positives shouldn't happen ΔT 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
If such a report contains no false positives (which shouldn't be a problem in this case) a bot could tag them all for deletion under WP:U2. Δ, I would be willing to jump through the hoops to become a bot operator to make this happen, giving Δ full credit for actually writing the bot on the theory that this would help to strengthen his case for unblocking.
In cases where such reports do contain false positives they can be listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fix common mistakes and one of our team will go through each one. Right now I am fixing "the the" errors (he was the the first to receive the The Typo Fixing Award") which cannot be fixed by a bot because of things like the band called "The The" and the CD by Elliot Ingber titled "The The The The". --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If you need any report like that run I can do it fairly easily (I already have the infrastructure for any text based reports you want). They do use the database dumps that the WMF provide so it may not always be the most current list, but isn't normally more than about a month out of date. ΔT 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This sort of work is right up Δ's alley. But, I seriously doubt it would have any impact on his being unblocked. Δ has done an enormous amount of work in this sort of area for the project before. See User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae. Some of that stuff is crucial to the operation of the project. Even today after years of being blocked, his reports are still the underpinnings of significant functions on the project. It doesn't matter. The pitchforks surrounding his head are just as sharp as they ever were. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am just the person to stare down a crowd holding torches and pitchforks. Right now I am waiting on Δ (who wrote "Given my current available time limits, those tasks will occupy my time until at least the end of February" so it will be a while) and then when we have a plan as required by arbcom, I plan on pursuing this until I get a clear answer one way or the other.
Some will no doubt place me in the "Δ supporter" category, but the truth is that I really don't know or care whether Δ will follow the (yet to be written) plan. If he doesn't, someone will block him and we are done. If he does, I will no doubt have to spend a bit of time dealing with editors who report him anyway but that shouldn't take much time to do. My concern is that everybody, no matter how well-liked or generally-hated, gets a fair chance from arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: I haven't forgotten about this request, its actually fairly complex. I am running into several blocking issues that I am having to think/work thru. Most notably just the sheer size of the data set. Python doesn't like lists of more than about 25 million items. I'll let you know when I overcome those obstacles. ΔT 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF

User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Example/6 Squadron SAAF during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf

User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Example/Al-A'raf during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some things

Hi! Have some questions

  • Could you do some magic at suggested articles tool? That is, if I have in URL filled title= and/or iw=, get them to the form. So bookmarklets are working (using wgPageName etc.)
  • If I would need (don't need currently, but I may need sometime in future), could such kind of report be generated for some amount of time (month for example)?
  • I assume in this report you just used pp_propname from page_props table and nothing else?
  • Really love this tool. Articles code at lvwiki now are getting much more cleaner :) a) would it be possible to tweak a little bit the code from <ref name="foobar"/> to <ref name="foobar" />, which I suppose it more correct b) In Latvian Misplaced Pages, {{reflist}} is {{atsauces}} (we use the same params, that enwiki), it would be nice, that references get to their section correctly. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
For the suggested_articles tool, I have made a few tweaks that should let you do this, they should go live in the next hour or so.
The unref_blp_count.log is a static log of the values at a given point. The only reason it only goes back to June is that tool labs had a hardware failure and some data was lost. The backups do not contain *.log files so the historical data was lost.
hewiki_articles_missing_files uses several factors, the pp table isnt one of them. It uses the image table, excludes number pages between 0 and 2010, and excludes any page in either "פירושונים" or "ימות השנה"
As for List Defined References, I have added the space, and will look into actually making it work multi-project. Need to think that one thru so it will actually work well without having a million rules for each wiki.
ΔT 14:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
suggested_articles tool isn't working today (showing blank page), but thanks for the changes. I suppose you meant imagelinks table, not image table in hewiki_articles_missing_files, right? And thanks for List Defined References change. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Missed a typo. check now. Yes I should have referenced the image_links table. ΔT 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Now it's working, but there is another typo :) If I put in the URL title=Cool_category, then "Category:" gets appended in the form (there is "Category:Cool_category"). Oh, and one small note about List Defined References. <ref name="foo"></ref> (yes, there are people out there, who uses this syntax) should be treated as <ref name="foo" />. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Δ/Example/Al-An'am

User:Δ/Example/Al-An'am, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Δ/Example/Al-An'am and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Δ/Example/Al-An'am during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Elvey/169.230.155.123

@Elvey: there are several issues your running into, that report doesnt update because its not a SPI subpage, it will also error out because you include an invalid user Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine', and lastly because of a MediaWiki API bug that I just discovered due to this request: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T122803 ΔT 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Δ Add topic