Case Opened on 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Case amended (by motion) on 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at

subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the

.

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  )
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Friday (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Hammersoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bellwether BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Image:Assume good faith lolcat.jpg: We're sadly lacking this, thus there is the need for arbitration.

This is a reasonably complex case involving numerous issues. Betacommand runs a bot, named BetacommandBot whose tasks include fair-use tagging. Betacommand has used his bot to tag thousands of images per policy,

. The policy was made after a board resolution on March 23 2007 gave a year to fix non-free media. Unfortunately, the communication between Betacommand and users who wholeheatedly agree with these activities and users who are opposed to it has been less than stellar. This is a very heated conflict, as Betacommand is constantly subject to abuse and trolling, and he feels a bit alienated by this. I urge the Abritration Committee to look at the behaviour of users in this debate, possibly rule on the application on the policy, and basically, help resolve this conflict over fair use policy and the resulting incivility and mess that has ensued with it.

Note 1: I've tried to give a short summary of the conflict here, but I'm not exactly good at writing intros and similar stuff like that, and I'm biased in this case as well, so my summary is probably not neutral.

Note 2: The list of parties isn't comprehensive, and there are probably omissions and additions that shouldn't be there.

More: I personally think that the community isn't making progress; even if it is making some progress, I think there's too much bad-faith, incivility and the zOMG WIKIDRAMA with this. Betacommand has indicated a desire for an arb case for quite a bit now, and many think that an arb case is inevitable. I'd prefer to try to cut all the bad-faith, incivility and zOMG WIKIDRAMA as soon as possible, preferably through the intervention of the arbitration committee.

I think there are a number of problems in this area, but I'm not sure which of them can really be addressed through Arbitration. Maxim didn't really make a case for this above - more like, here's a problem, fix it! I'm not sure the remit of ArbCom is broad enough to allow them to take this case on their own initiative - i.e., without an explanation of why they should. It should be noted, also, that slow and painful progress on the Betacommand/BetacommandBot issues is being made, particularly with the brand new creation of a separate bot account to allow three other users the ability to perform BCBot functions. This wasn't without its own controversy, but it will fade with time and there will be one less BC associated problem to deal with.

Anyway - the problems here aren't that amenable to ArbCom intervention. The issues of Betacommand's conduct have been dealt with when extremes are hit, and that will continue to happen. Conduct by other individuals is not really at the ArbCom level. The policy issue is still a problem, but the time for an ArbCom determination has passed as the tagging work is largely complete. Plus - this isn't

]

Statement by Betacommand

Response to Crotalus horridus:

• point one, those users who I trust have access to the code, User:Lar for example has a copy of the BCBot Non-free content tagging scripts
• Two, I handle myself fairly well, given the amount of trolling and abuse that is thrown at me.
• four, I wish you had brought that to my attention ten months ago when that happened, I would have been able to tell you what happened there. but given the amount of time that has passed it is difficult to pin it down. If a user brings an issue to me I gladly quickly address it.
• β^_command 03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Statement by

LaraLove

I don't think there's much that ArbCom can do at this point. Progress is being made, as has been noted by others. It's slow, but it's happening. The situation, as it currently stands, is still very heated on both sides. Many criticize Betacommand's civility, or lack there of, but it's not one sided, nor is this request for Betacommand. Focusing on the bot, this is premature as the deadline is quickly approaching and much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged. As I recommended to MBisanz when he asked for my opinion on making his request, this would be better postponed until a month after the deadline, if issues continue past that point.

]

I apologise for submitting a rather long statement - I hope that the complexity of the issues and (hopefully) the clarity of presentation will justify the length.

My position is that

. I would appreciate it if people could take the time to read that and comment on it.

In other words, I too support the principle of the work BetacommandBot (or its newly created clone User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot) does on non-free images. I have, however, consistently criticised the way in which this work has been done, and made criticisms on other matters, and supported criticisms made by others when I thought they were valid. This has been difficult for several reasons: (1) Some people attack Betacommand and his work due to failure to understand our policy - this creates a lot of background noise. (2) Some people uncritically support Betacommand and his work and attack his critics - this too adds to the background noise. (3) Those that fall between these two extremes are not all saying the same thing at the same time (there is a wide spectrum of opinion and a large number of issues). This results in long, heated discussions, and very little progress. An added distraction is Betacommand's incivility in response to criticism, and his disruption in other areas, which, when it involves his bot, proves (or did prove) difficult to separate from his non-free image work.

Several other points I would like the committee to consider:

• Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images. There are many issues concerning non-free images that need to be discussed and worked on, and the constant discussions around Betacommand and his bot and the other issues involving Betacommand, distract from this other work (and the distractions include this arbitration request and any case if it opens). I've given three examples here.
  • Discussions about the WMF deadline. I have tried to start discussions in various places about what to do about what changes (if anything) need to take place after the 23 March 2008 deadline. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline. The closest things to a response to that that I know of are Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive_2#Random_Proposal and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy. The responses, despite my attempts to draw the discussions to people's attention, have been much less than the huge amounts of discussion on Betacommand and his bot.
  • Proposals for what to do afterwards. Trying to widen the debate and move it forward, I made a proposal at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance for what should happen in the future with bots and humans working together more productively. This page was created at about the same time as Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c (courtesy blanked, see the deletion discussion and the deletion review), but received far less attention than that page and its associated discussions.
  • Work on non-free images. My own non-free image work has mainly been on book and magazine covers and historical images, some of which may be shown to be public domain, or soon will be. This work, at User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries and its talk page has largely ground to a halt due to the large volume of images and the distraction of the community discussions over Betacommand and his bot. Though I recognise that it was my own choice to participate in the discussions rather than continue this work, I am sure that others involved in the discussions (including Betacommand) have had similar problems.
• Behaviour issues. There has been consistent uncritical support of Betacommand with incivil attacks on those who criticise him or his work. This is not an exhaustive list, but of the people named (so far) as parties to this case, and if the case is accepted, I would present evidence concerning: the behaviour of User:Hammersoft and User:Laralove when commenting on issues; the disputes between Betacommand and User:MickMacNee; and the general reactions to and attacks on MickMacNee, User:Bellwether BC and BrownHairedGirl.
• Bot approval policy issues. The process by which User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot was approved remains a matter of concern to me. The bot request page at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot was created and speedily approved within two minutes. Betacommand has commented here: "Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls." - although at least one member of the bot approval group has said the request should not have been speedily approved, I think this 'forcing something through to avoid trolls' sets an incredibly bad precedent.
• Comments by others. Of the comments and statements made by others so far, I would like to draw attention to those made by User:BrownHairedGirl (see BHG's statement on her talk page here) and User:MBisanz's statement above, and the points raised by Franamax below.

Overall, my position remains that which I have been taking in the last few days (when the idea of an arbitration case has been floating around): not to file a request or open a case at this point in time. I think the community should instead focus its efforts on ensuring that by 23 March 2008 en-Wikipedia is at least

compliant (sorry for the jargon there) as far as bot scanning goes (of course, many images will still not be NFCC#10c compliant, as the bot does not detect the presence of a rationale, but only the absence of one of the requirements of a rationale - namely the name of the article the image is used in). The community should also be focusing its efforts on what the deadline means (will the image deletion policy need changing?) and what to do after the deadline (how to continue to ensure compliance of non-free images with policy).

Only if the behaviour issues continue after these issues have been dealt with, or only if the behaviour issues impede discussion and resolution of these issues, will an arbitration case be needed. As can be seen above, I think that the behaviour issues and the resulting community furore are coming close to impeding work on these issues, but I think that progress is still slowly being made. In addition, I would urge people reading this to help out with current work on non-free images, and to make productive contributions to discussions on how to move forward after the 23 March 2008 deadline. Carcharoth (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - Laralove says: "much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged". In fact, that stage has already been reached. Betacommand finished that about a week ago now, I think, and if you look at User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI (and in particular the history of it, such as here and here and here), the backlogs of thousands and thousands of tagged images (many of them the older 'legacy' ones) have been cleared (either fixed or deleted). You could say the ongoing discussions resulted from the large tagging runs in the first few months of this year, but I agree, once the drama subsides, things will be better. There is still the proposed BetacommandBot phase 4 - for details of these phases, see here (Betacommand may be able to provide a more up-to-date link - the latest I heard is that he plans to start this phase in April) - it would be good to avoid drama around implementation of that phase of operations. In addition though, I am concerned that there will be a big push from certain quarters, after the WMF deadline passes on 23 March 2008, to change the deletion criteria and get rid of a lot of non-free images that some people don't think should be on Wikipedia. Those people are perfectly entitled to do that, but I don't want to see such changes strong-armed through under the banner of "enforcing the WMF resolution", at least not without proper community discussion. And that means a long, careful discussion over several weeks, with a clear way to end the discussion and move forward. Even though people say this is no longer possible give the size of Wikipedia, I don't think people or bots should be forcing the pace on anything as sensitive as this, especially given the lessons of what happened over the past year. It is still unclear how much damage the implementation of this policy has done to the community. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I must say that I find this RfAr to be very premature, and have stated as much on the ANI/B page. BCBot has some important functions he needs to perform in advance of 23 March, and allowing him to finish these functions would have also cooled down the tempers of all parties on all sides. With that said, as succinctly as possible, my view of the issue is this:

1. Betacommand is chronically incivil. There are many diffs scattered throughout this request showing this, but just in the past couple of days, he's called BrownHairedGirl a "dumbass" and a "dick" and called her good-faith actions "bullshit." This is not out-of-character at all for BC, from my previous interactions/observations of him. I've been accused of various imaginary transgressions by both BC and his supporters.
2. Betacommand's anger sometimes spills over into retaliation. (See the diffs regarding MickMacNamee above.)
3. Betacommand's detractors sometimes allow their anger to morph into a "hang 'im high!" mentality that forces Betacommand and his supporters into even more of a "bunker mentality." I've tried to refrain from this, and stick to a "Betacommand needs to be far more civil" line, but I don't know for certain that I've always succeeded.
4. There is trolling of Betacommand, but it's not by any of the parties to this case. It's more of the "YOU'RE A !@#$@#! JACKASS FOR TAGGING MY PICTURE OF MY GIRLFRIEND!!!! I @#!#$$#@! HATE YOU!!!!!" type, and not actually users who have a real, policy-based issue with him.
5. Betacommand takes these trolling comments far too personally (the users who leave them are most likely <15 years old and bored), allowing it to color and affect the way he deals with the legitimate criticism that comes his way.
6. Betacommand refuses to open the code to his bot, keeping anyone with a genuine interest in improving its function from doing so. This (as I see it, anyway) flies in the face of everything that WP is about.

Well, that's my view of the situation. I think #1, #2, and #6 are the actionable points, in my opinion, and thus (even though it's not the timetable I would have chosen) this case should be accepted.

• For the record, I strongly agree with adding ST47 to the case. His misuse of tools is being snowed under at AN/I by his supporters, and should be at least addressed in any case involving BC. Bellwether ^B_C 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief Reply to FT2's Analysis: With all due respect, claiming that all (or even a majority of) BC's incivility is due to attacks on him is, well, bunk. He's been chronically incivil to many users who have never posted anything resembling "attacks" on his page. BHGirl blocked him for demonstrable intransigence to a legitimate request to clean up a mess he had made, and he called her a "dick" and a "dumbass" among other pleasantries. Those insults are but the tip of the iceberg. If Giano is going to be put on "civility patrol", then perhaps something similar could result from this arbcom for Betacommand, but something must be done. Apathetic responses have been tried. They don't work. Action needs to be taken sooner rather than later. I don't advocate a lengthy (or any) block, but an "on-the-record" very firm reminder that being trolled does not excuse personal attacks and incivility is in order, in my view. Bellwether ^B_C 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair observation. Bear in mind, I've warned even obviously irredeemable virulent warriors more than once, on their way to a community ban, as well as drawing a firm line on conduct and using tools. If Betacommand's manner is fostered in large part by stress and short fuse generally (which is possible), and that stress is in turn going to heavily diminish imminently (which seems possible), then that is the reason I would like to hold off a bit to see how it goes. But to avoid doubt, as I have said many times, ultimately incivility norms apply to all, not just some, and chances (when given and used properly) should be given in anticipation of actual visible effort and change, not interminably. Just to clarify the thinking. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's very troubling to me that not only do two arbitrators oppose this request, but three simply are abdicating to the "community" a responsibility that we, as a community, have already tried and failed to resolve. Bellwether ^B_C 11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if it is not resolved, and remains a problem, then acceptance would be my choice. But you need to review RFAR a bit to realize that in most cases where actual communal discussion is (or seems to be) taking place, we (often don't/almost never) derail it. That's more usually for example, when RFC or mediation's still ongoing, or mentorship is occurring. But it can be for any kind of communal approach. Arbitration is the last resort, for matters that will not wait, or matters that the community cannot resolve. Plainly, neither of those are the case at this time (March 14). That may or may not change shortly, depending on circumstances. hence not accepting, not declining, but "on hold" watching progress of communal discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I waited to see what others would say, partly through interest, partly because of being blocked for daring to question betacommand anyway, and I see from the above comments I have been vindicated. It is obvious from the above evidence that I was not carrying out a campaign against betacommand. My evidence against betacommand is more than covered above, if arbcom don't choose to proceed on the basis of the above diffs, then frankly they are not worth the web page they written on. It is laughable that the creation of a separate but entirely subordinate bot is being heralded as a start to solve all the problems, that pathetic attitude is merely indicative of the entire problem, betacommand is untouchable on wikpedia, his hobby programming is more important than any other policy, and it is frankly not worth questioning any aspect of his existence, its pointless, editors must accept he is untouchable, lest you be vandalised or banned for the most ridiculous of reasons, or, as have some very experienced yet completely pissed off admins have already done, leave. A total joke. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FT2:

• I would like some clarification as to what these community actions to resolve the issue apparently are, because all I see is the creation of a separate bot by people friendly to betacommand in order to absolve him of any responsibility of explaining or communicating about the bot, or even worse, be accountable for its failings. I would also like some clarification of this continued idea that BCB for NFC10c is protecting WP from being sued, in his own words and other, he is doing 'good work' or essential work. With regards to the NFCC resolution, bcb 'enforces' a ridiculously small part of the policy, so small as to be redundant, considering it is something a human can check during the necessary human assessment of every fair use claimed image for the 95% of the policy bcb cannot check. The allowance of the wars with bcb has only cemented this idea in certain supporters eyes, who clearly don't understand the policy or the bot. Finally, I am amazed given the named participants above that this issue is still being attributed to just angry newbies who don't understand why their images have been tagged. It is not, bcb and his bot, and the wider compliance process he is a part of (and part of this is he must accept that as bcb owner that he is a part of a system, not a just lone editor) can be massively improved, but not if he remains an intransigent cog in the system, given massive leeway because he can't differentiate between angry repsonses from newbies and feedback from other editors. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider the complete non-response from betacommand to this User_talk:Betacommand/20080301#The_instructions_at_the_top_of_this_page reasonable request from a Wikipedian who has been an editor since September 2007. One realy does wonder why it is just apparently acceptable that betacommand does not need to reply? MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) And who is allowing betacommand to think he can just not reply. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And to make implied
  legal threats in a discussion [1] MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 Clerk note: extensive threaded discussion removed from statement; it can be viewed here. Daniel (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, I urge Arbcom to take on this case, to examine at least some of these three related issues, which I list in descending order of priority:

1. the conduct of
   Betacommand
   , and the suitability of Betacommand as a bot operator
2. the operation of the Bot Approvals Group
3. the operation and supervision of the non-free-image-tagging process

I have some serious criticisms to make of Betacommand (BC), but I first want to stress that I have considerable sympathy for the situation in which BC finds himself, at the receiving end of a barrage of unjustified abuse from editors who object to image tagging. I have written a longer commentary on the situation, but the underlying problem is that the image-tagging process has been badly designed and badly handled. It appears to have been designed primarily as a technical task, with far too little provision for the huge social impact of attaching deletion warnings to hundreds of thousands of images, such as the ability of the bot operator to withstand the inevitable abuse, and the lack of any visible mechanism to extract from the torrent of reactions any aspects of the process which might benefit from tweaking. The process has also been overly dependent on BC, with several adverse consequences.

The unpleasantness of the attacks on BC has unsurprisingly led to some well-intentioned editors setting themselves up as his protectors, fending off all criticism. Unfortunately, while there have been some perma-critics of BC, some of the defenders also appear to be defending BC and BCbot regardless of anything he does, which has impeded efforts to resolve any problems which occur.

The problems which should be considered include:

1. Chronic incivility from Betacommand
2. Running bots for unauthorised tasks
3. Inadequate documentation of the bots operations
4. Failure to undo problems caused by his bot until he was blocked
5. Using his bot to attack another editor
6. The failure of the Bot Approvals Group to take action in case of breaches

The attacks on BC neither excuse nor justify this behaviour. In any other bot editor, this sort of behaviour would long ago have led to an escalating series of blocks, and certainly to the removal of his bot flag. Now that the main task of tagging the backlog of non-free images is complete, it is time for BCbot to be stood down from NFCC image-tagging, and for BC to concentrate on programming an NFCC bot for others to use. So far as I am aware, all BCbot's other tasks are either duplicates of the functions of other bots or are non-critical. Given the ongoing problems with his bot, the bot flag should be withdrawn from BCbot, unless there is a significant improvement both in the conduct of Betacommand and the operation of his bot.

Many of the issues have been well-documented in other submissions, so I will expand only on one aspect of it this stage (more detailed evidence if case accepted).

Unauthorised tasks

The problems here are long-standing, but I will focus on one case: categories.

.

That's very precise: "per the decisions of

).

Leave aside for now the question of whether this was a good idea (I think it's not). The deletion were nothing to do with

WP:CFD

, yet BC repeatedly claimed that it was authorised. We have two possibilities here: either BC ignores his bot's task limits, or he doesn't understand them, and neither is acceptable in the operator of a bot, particularly one running at such speed on the toolserver. BC claimed that done this before without complaint, but failed to offer any evidence of that.

It doesn't stop there. Having used the bot to made some 2,500 unauthorised edits, BC ignored repeated calls from many editors to revert the damage, leaving others to do so manually. The rollback happened only after I blocked BCbot when it resumed work on a different task, without an effort being made BC to repair the damage as required by

, and which seems crazy: if blocking a bot which fails to revert unauthorised edits is a "content dispute", then no-one can stop such a bot (because any admin who objects to the unauthorised edits would be labelled as "involved").

I have no previous history of dispute with BC, and first engaged him over the removal of redlinked categories. From that episode, it appears to BC accepts no restraints on the use of his bot, and the Bot Approvals Group seems uninterested in taking action about the breaches, and sees itself purely a technical assessment mechanism.

Meanwhile, the community is deadlocked between the permacritics of BC/BCbot and the die-hard defenders of the bot ... with the result that no resolution is possible of the genuine problems which do occur, unless arbcom sets some parameters, either by directly placing restraints on BC and BCbot (such as requiring logging and documentation of tasks and setting standards for addressing problems) or by requiring the Bot Approvals Group to proactively enforce

WP:BOT

and to work with BC to improve the bot's operations.

BCbot performs a huge number of edits, which inevitably magnifies any deficiencies. Unless such a hyperactive bot follows very high standards, the resulting problems are magnified by the sheer scale of the work done, causing massive community disruption. The community has shown itself unable to resolve the problem, and the lengthy threads at

]

Another problem with BCbot: I have only just become aware of another unsatisfactory situation: the newly-created User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out.[

It allows editors to out of receiving notices from BCbot, and warns editors in return that opting out removes any right to complain about "deletions, reversions, etc. because you were "not notified" about them".

That's fair enough, but the next bit is not: "You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise".

This is an unfair bundling of terms. If an editor opts out of receiving notices about NFCC images, why should they be debarred from objecting if the bot does something which they find problematic in relation to categories or wikiproject tags? Those tasks do not usually involve notifications to individual editors, and I can see no valid reason to link the two, and the ignore-all-communications clause seems to ignore

.

Attempts to raise this with BC at User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Consensus_on_proposal have had the response "Dont like it? tough". That dismissive incivility bodes ill for the arbitrators hopes that the problems can be resolved without arbcom accepting a case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: extensive threaded discussion removed from statement; it can be viewed here. Daniel (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's time for me to make a statement, as the request will now certainly be accepted. First, allow me to respond to Nick in regards to my being added to the case. I stand by the protection of that bot approval request, as I am not interested in seeing that forum being swamped by argument about BetacommandBot when not necessary. In my opinion, the initial speedy approval should have stood because it is a clone of an existing bot. The only legitimate concerns (that did not also apply to BetacommandBot) were those about the bot being a role account, and that is why the approval was pushed through. Perceived attempts at disruption and argument-mongering after the closing resulted in the protection of the approval page. It is not standard practice to protect these, but it isn't every day that a BRFA gets that much negative attention.

Now I must address three more things: BetacommandBot, specifically the opt-out arguments and its blocks, the proposed bot, and the attitude of various users throughout this. BetacommandBot performs a necessary task, enforcement of our non-free content policy. No one debates this. People do argue that it performs too many tasks. This is obviously being worked on, with the new bot approval. Some actually argue that since it can't assess every point of

, it shouldn't be allowed to operate at all. I hope the arbitrators can see the fallacy in that argument. People have requested to be opted out, and up until Beta's recent changes, he allowed anyone to request opting out, as long as they had a valid reason (something beyond "it's annoying me"). The recent opt-out system he created has been met with resistance because it tries to circumvent policy or something like that. It's VOLUNTARY. As for the blocks, well, it feels to me that most of the blocks are by admins who really don't understand what the problem is and are so anxious to block such a high-profile bot as this and gain access to the elite club of admins against BCBot that they don't consider the reasons for blocking and they don't attempt to get consensus for a block. There have been blocks of this bot over a single error, where my bot, which is much less well known, has made similar errors without being blocked.

The proposed bot is going to be programmed by beta but operated by the members of BAG. There are complaints about it being a role account, however it has been stated that a log will be kept so people know which operator has run a specific task. Since it is only a clone of an existing bot, it is receiving far too much controversy for something that should have been speedily approved and immediately transitioned to.

Even after endless discussion, many of us, including myself, have become frustrated at users who do not appear to be paying attention to our statements who we feel are wasting our time. We may snap at them, ignore them, or unleash bots against them. Sometimes these are intended as non-disruptive ways to illustrate a point. (That's probably usually the case.) While a little more research and consideration may be desired of the anti-BCBot people, I think it's clear that most of the people listed above as parties have been responsible for brushes with the line of

]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/1/1)

• Reject, at least for now. As AGK observes, the community is making progress on its own here. The only areas not being addressed are the history of attacks on Betacommand and the drama-mongering that has been known to take place from time to time when this issue arises, and at this point I don't think there has been a sufficiently clear case presented in that respect. --
  talk) 02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Switch to accept. Though I still think some of the issues here would be best left alone so that efforts at resolution already underway could continue (such as discussions about different users assuming some of the bot's current functions) the scope here has been steadily expanding over the last few days and deserves detailed, unified consideration. --
    talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Put on hold here, and review (with willingness to extend hold). Discussions in progress. Rationale as follows (see numbered list of issues above): -

Issues (1)(2) Current discussions may resolve issues to do with betacommand's civility, which to a large extent arises in the context of being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters, and therefore if removed from that context which he is handling problematically, may well significantly diminish or come under control. This is a serious problem and well attested but if it's perhaps going to be made moot (BC will only need to discuss with BAG trusted users) then no need to open a case.

Issue (3) Code will be allowed to multiple trusted users on reasonable grounds (to prevent abuse of powerful capabilities) - beyond that arbitration is not an appropriate venue for what are essentially differences of philosophy.

Issue (4) Operation by others will probably take care of most of this, again may be moot. If it does not then I would consider evidence that despite formal attempts to resolve the issue, a bot is persistently running an improper task, or serious bugs have persistently not been fixed.

Issue (5) is a matter for BAG who are our communal experts. If multiple BAG members feel okay (they will see the code), then I personally would trust their view on this.

Issue (6) As with rollback in January, the close was not entirely unreasonable and more discussion is taking place, community seems to be resolving this one, arbitration is not needed.

Issue (7) Decisions like these are reasonable ones. Reasonable novel solution for a troublesome exceptional situation; others may differ, I personally feel comfortable with deeming that BAG's decision to allow, does indeed make sense. Multiple operators is a non-standard action but those involved seem aware of their responsibilities, the suggestions are reasonable and appropriately minimal, and have considered anti-abuse measures such as logging who uses the bot.

Issue (8) If BAG itself is indeed a concern, then I would hope the matter will be raised amicably in a suitable discussion, if possible. I would consider evidence in this area for (eg) possible abuse-type issues, policy clarification and assisting in reconciling issues as a last resort... but not for new policy making if avoidable.

Issue (9) There has presumably been significant discussion by the community at other venues (meta, MWF-instigated), but I can't myself be sure of this. Carcharoth's concern is that polarization of the debate around Betacommand's bot work may have caused other necessary debates to be sidelined. If so, that is a communal concern, probably best addressed by users in the community, not via this committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my recusal... My barnstars were mainly awarded for the technical part of the job of Betacommand and his bot. That makes my position with regard to non-free content very clear (at least as an editor — which explains my recusal). It is as strict as my position concerning incivility, especially when it concerns administrators. As clarified by my colleagues here, it is expected from all contributors to understand the role of each other and try to find out ways to work in a better atmosphere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:

Wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopedia, but many images that could be considered essential to explain and illustrate our articles are subject to copyright. Copyright law, by statute since 1979 in the United States and by statute or common law or the equivalent elsewhere in the world, permits limited utilization of copyrighted material where the use constitutes "fair use." Determining what constitutes fair use of a given image in a given context can be a complex question of intellectual property law (I am not expressing any legal opinions in these comments). Partly for potential liability reasons, partly for practical reasons, and partly for philosophical reasons, English Wikipedia has placed strict limits on when fair-use media may be used and requires that certain information be provided in connection with each such use. The body of policy and policy interpretation that has grown up surrounding application of the

non-free content criteria

(formerly "fair use criteria") is complex and can be particularly opaque to users who are new to Wikipedia or new to the process of uploading images.

The need to control excessive or unauthorized use of non-free images coupled with the complexities of our use criteria create a need for users to act as "image patrollers" who review uploads and call for the improved documentation and/or deletion of images that they believe are being used outside our criteria. This is an essential task and also one of the most thankless in the entire project, because contributors who have dedicated volunteer time to locating and uploading an image to accompany an article are often frustrated or offended to receive a notice that they have violated our intellectual-property policy or, worse, when their images are deleted. The endless disputes over proper interpretation and application of the policies complicate the task still further, as does the fact that there are so many images to be addressed that the notifications must often be provided via bot-delivered templates rather than individually. As I have said in the past, "We struggle with the balance between excess nonfree content on the one hand and sometimes excessively technical nonfree-content-policy enforcement on the other hand and excessive backlash against the volunteers who do the thankless job of policy enforcement on the third hand."

Last year, an image-patrol specialist usernamed Abu badali was brought before the Arbitration Committee because he was perceived as excessively zealous and confrontational in his dealings with image users. In its decision, the committee adopted a principle that I had proposed on the Workshop: "Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain

biting the newcomers

, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." The committee's decision expressed the hope that Abu badali would work with users whose images he challenged in a patient, diplomatic, and collaborative way. Unfortunately, this dedicated user eventually tired of disputes with other editors—whose fault the disputes were is a moot point—and left the project altogether. He was not the first and will not be the last editor who dedicates himself or herself to image work for a time and then wearies of the never-ending and ill-received task and either drops image work as a user of his or her volunteer time or leaves Wikipedia altogether. But we also don't know how many contributors, old and new, weary of insufficiently explicated image deletions and warnings and leave us as well.

This brings us to the issue of Betacommand and Betacommandbot. It is clear that Betacommand is an energetic and dedicated patroller of images and plays a key role in the bot-assisted enforcement of our image policies. He plays, in the words of the Abu badali decision, "an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure." It is equally clear that Betacommand has, in performing his important tasks, sometimes failed to lived up to the ideal job description for an image patroller: there is a fair body of evidence that he does not quite always "remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." These flaws are especially regrettable in light of the findings in last year's Betacommand ArbCom decision, relating both to Betacommand himself and to his bot, which serves vital functions but often encounters technical issues. A complicating factor is that the same Betacommandbot is often used for non-image-related functions, some of which have been problematic. (I do not address the issue of Betacommand's declining to openly release his bot's source code; whether that should be required strikes me as a policy issue beyond the scope of arbitration.)

I am sure that all of us on the committee would infinitely prefer to be voting to restore +sysop to a Betacommand who had addressed all of the issues raised in the committee's prior decision, rather than considering whether to accept another arbitration case against him, one which raises some issues that appear on their face to have significant substance. And yet, one must recognize and respect the dedication to Wikipedia of a user who, in spite of constant criticism and in spite of the impact that the committee's prior decision must have had upon him, continues to take the lead in image patrolling work day-in and day-out.

I will hold off on voting to accept this case in the hope that progress can be made, per my colleague FT2's posts above, in addressing many of the issues presented. I very much urge that Betacommand—and his critics—will take these points to heart. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot fault this description and opinion at all (And noting that you posted longer than I did.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know there's no prize for the longest post :) I think most of us are adopting the same strategy here, in that we'd prefer the community's efforts to resolve this dispute to continue, and hopefully succeed, but we'll certainly reconsider if the situation changes. --

talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reject, per Bainer; happy to reconsider if the community is unable to deal. James F. (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Given that multiple individuals are acting in a way to ensure that the community cannot deal, I feel that instead we need to accept. James F. (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold over for a few days. The community is making progress but has not yet come to an agreement; if agreement is lacking then I incline to acceptance because of the complex of potentially conflicting policies involved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to accept. The issues of communication and the way the bot does its work are serious enough to go through, and my judgment is that the community is unlikely to resolve them. This does not mean the 23 March deadline is lifted, nor that non-free media can be left alone. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline for the moment, per James. Kirill 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Accept. Kirill 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. There are important issues which need addressing here — one way or another. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to accept. New aspects of the issue continue to arise on seemingly a daily basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Means of contributing

2) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wikignoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Decorum

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

User conduct

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Free and non-free content

5) The English Wikipedia, like other Wikimedia Foundation projects, is primarily based upon

("NFCC", formerly "fair use criteria" or "FUC").

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Non-free images and media

6) Wikipedia:Non-free content, key elements of which are policy, stipulates that non-free images and other media may be used only under certain specific circumstances. The source of the image, the provision under which it is used, and the article where it appears must be documented. This policy serves as the project-specific implementation of the Wikimedia Foundation resolution on licensing policy.

Passed 11 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Non-compliant non-free media

7) Images and other media that do not meet the requirements described by the non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. Unless the non-compliance with policy is blatant and cannot be fixed, the uploader or any other interested editor should be provided with a reasonable amount of time (generally seven days under current policy) within which to address the problem with the image. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted. Similarly, a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Role of editors who specialize in image review

8) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that fail to satisfy the NFCC or are missing the necessary documentation play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain

who are the foundation of the project's future growth, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged or ensure that those questions are answered by others.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Response of users whose images are questioned

9) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned, or any other editor who believes the image should be retained, should address the matter promptly and civilly. In doing so, it is best to bear in mind that having and adhering to policies in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons, even though the precise parameters of the policy may be debatable or unclear. Disagreeing with the concerns raised, disputing the interpretation of policy as applied to a specific image, and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate responses, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Role of bots and scripts

10)

is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Responsibilities of bot operators

11.1) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Betacommand

1)

). In addition to other interests, Betacommand has devoted a substantial portion of his editing, directly and through the bots, to enforcement of the non-free content criteria through image-tagging.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Prior Arbitration case

2) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, decided May 3, 2007, this Committee unanimously found that Betacommand, who was then an administrator, had committed a series of errors and misjudgments. Among other concerns were issues relating to the deletion of images, the misuse of automated tools and related communication issues, and incidents of alleged disruption to prove a point. Betacommand was desysopped, but was not otherwise sanctioned.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Continued participation

3) Since the prior Arbitration decision, Betacommand has continued to edit with an emphasis on bot-programming and image-tagging work. During this period, Betacommand and BetacommandBot have played an extremely significant role in enforcing the non-free content criteria and policies with respect to tens of thousands of actually or allegedly non-compliant images and media. In carrying out this role, Betacommand becomes a de facto voice of the project to editors, frequently including new editors, whose images he has challenged. Responses to Betacommand's work from affected editors have ranged from praise and numerous

, to legitimate questions and criticisms, to unacceptable expressions of overt hostility and harassment.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Problematic behavior

4) Although much of Betacommand's continued work since the prior case is commendable, several aspects of his user conduct over the past year have been problematic, including the following:

(A) Betacommand has often been grossly incivil to other editors and has made a series of personal attacks against other editors, generally in the context of disputes concerning operation of his bots.

(B) Betacommand has not communicated in an effective fashion with many editors whose images he has tagged for deletion.

(C) In February 2008, in admitted retaliation for criticism by another user, Betacommand engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point by causing BetacommandBot to "spam" about 50 automated image-tagging notices on that user's talkpage even though the images and notices had nothing to do with that user.

(D) In March 2008, after being asked to enable an "opt-out" feature for BetacommandBot, Betacommand created User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, a page on which users could elect not to receive image-tagging notifications from BetacommandBot. However, in addition to making the legitimate point that users might suffer deletion of their images without prior notification if they opted out of receiving notifications, Betacommand also attempted to impose the unreasonable quid pro quo that users signing the opt-out list "also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." He failed to respond reasonably to widespread criticism that this requirement could not be justified.

(E) Betacommand has utilized his bot for several tasks not within the scope of prior approvals by the Bot Approvals Group. At least until recently, Betacommand did not segregate his automated image-tagging work from other BetacommandBot tasks, which although not required would have facilitated addressing issues involving one disputed task without interfering with the performance of other tasks.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Disruption

5) The issues concerning Betacommand's and BetacommandBot's conduct, coupled with overreactions on the part of some other editors and related disputes, have resulted in a series of disputes and disruptions. The level of disruption has been well beyond what a collaborative project should be expected to accept even in a contentious area such as fair-use policy and image-tagging, and must be brought to an end either via dramatically improved user conduct or via sanctions imposed by this committee.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Betacommand instructed

1) Betacommand is thanked for his contributions to the project but is instructed:

(A) To remain civil and to refrain from making personal attacks against any contributor;

(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group; and

(C) To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct such as placing numerous image-tag messages on the talkpage of a user who had nothing to do with the images in question.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Betacommand and editors urged

2) Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, to seek to have others do so, or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed. Participation by other editors in this process will be a valuable contribution toward addressing the overall situation reflected in the record of this case. Betacommand is also urged to establish an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing any unnecessary conditions on the right to decline to receive notifications.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Editors advised

3) Editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons. Editors are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas, and are also welcome to challenge the application of policies and criteria in individual cases, but are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Community input

4) The community, particularly including users with experience in image compliance and tagging work and those knowledgeable about bots and scripts, is urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The review should attempt to ensure:

(A) That the applicable policies and procedures are as straightforward and readily understandable as possible, particularly by new editors and editors new to contributing images as well as by administrators reviewing images tagged for deletion;

(B) That the policies and procedures are enforced in a user-friendly fashion that achieves compliance with policy without unnecessarily offending users or deterring future image contributions;

(C) That all the applicable templates are as clear and informative as possible;

(D) That a clear procedure exists to address disputes that may arise as to the permissibility of a particular image, the labelling of an image, or the use of an image on a particular article; and

(E) That the value that bots and scripts can provide in connection with image processes is maximized while any unnecessary disruption associated with them is minimized.

In addition, the Bot Approvals Group and interested members of the community are urged to assess whether any changes to or updating of the BAG's operations and procedures may be warranted in light of issues raised in this case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Review and future remedies

5.1) The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 60 hours (03:16, 9 November 2011) by Franamax (talk · contribs) for violation of ArbCom motion enacted here prohibiting "enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed", violating edit is here. Franamax (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block was expediently overturned.
    Wha? 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours (19:10, 23 October 2011) by Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs) for Violation of editing restrictions: "Cleanup" auto/semi-auto edit pattern ran on over 130 articles. Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success. --Tristessa (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 2 weeks (02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)) by Asterion (talk · contribs) for violation of #Community-imposed restrictions regarding civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring.[reply]
  • unblocked after two-and-a-half hours after consensus at ANI found that the block was not justified. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week (14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)) by Rd232 (talk · contribs) for violation of #Community-imposed restrictions regarding edits-per-minute restriction.[reply]
• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours (06:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)) by Lankiveil (talk · contribs) for violation of #Community-imposed restrictions regarding civility and violations of edits-per-minute restriction.[reply]
  • reduced to 24 hours due to civility complaint being 3 days stale and brought by a third party, and no clear breach of edits-per-minute restriction. Rd232 ^talk 02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CBM (talk · contribs) for violation of #Community-imposed restrictions
  .
• Δ (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours (13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)) by Kingpin13 (talk · contribs) for violation of #Community-imposed restrictions.[reply]
• talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely (11:38, December 29 2008) by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) for violation of special restrictions per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies
  .
• talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours (10 December 2008) by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) for violating [3]
  the first point of the community-imposed detailed below. (Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.)
• talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours (12:16, 1 December 2008) by Islander (talk · contribs) for clearly violating civility parole here. _TalkIslander 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours (18:43, November 23, 2008) by User:Lankiveil for violating civility restrictions with this edit, and also engaging in an extensive series of image removals (more than 25) without first attempting to gain consensus to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours (23:58, 08 November 2008) by User:LessHeard vanU for this violation of WP:NPA. Black Kite 00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours (09:53, 21 August 2008) by User:Viridae - "User is making automated edits which are banned per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed community ban of Betacommand" - _TalkIslander 10:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• talk · contribs) blocked 31 hours by User:Rodhullandemu for edit warring and not communicating with other per the restriction. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• WP:3RRs, suspended under the claim that the previous block was improper as the previous blocking editor had been involved in a content dispute), incivility, and falsely presenting essays as policy. (Reasons clarified here, over that in the block log.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 龱 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• ☄ 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Shortened to 72 hours.

  ☄ 00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• talk · contribs) blocked 1 week by User:Sandstein for severe incivility in a discussion concerning NFC images. (from block log, 09:04, 28 July 2008) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Community-imposed restrictions

Discussion located here.

1. Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on
   WP:VPR
   and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
2. Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
3. Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
4. Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

Modified by motion

Pursuant to the provisions of Remedy 5.1, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans

.

Passed 10-1 on 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)