Wikipedia : Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop

Does the use of "Users" here imply any different meaning than the use of "Editors", below? Or is the distinction that "Users" refers to distinct accounts and their use (i.e. whether bot, human, Meat Popsicle, etc.), and "Editors" refers to the distinct individuals, regardless of the means by which they interact with the project (i.e. Betacommand, whether as himself using that account or through Betacommandbot's actions, etc)? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any distinction is intended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vested contributors

2) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since I doubt that there is an expectation (or requirement?) for editors to do the wrong thing, perhaps It is understood / recognised that editors will occasionally make mistakes, suffer ... Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recidivism

3) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thoughts. Kirill 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps focus more on improving/modifying their behavior to address the complaints? Otherwise it's very similar to the 'mistakes' one above - "avoid repeating it" is just asking to be replaced by "avoid repeating the mistakes". Happy‑melon 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis here is more on "sanctioned"—the idea being that the Committee is rarely as merciful the second time around. Perhaps this could be clearer, though. Kirill 22:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without proper context this is meaningless. Some flaws in users are minor personality flaws, and are not "major" or outwardly disruptive. However, you always have some editor or admin who's just waiting to block someone to make the world a better place, even when those blocks don't help the user to improve (or might not be justified in the first place). So the fact that someone has been sanctioned does not always justify further sanctions for the same conduct. Passing something like this would seem to imply that one admin's judgement could become law. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I know this is talking about the past case, but believe me, someone will take it out of context. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible wording changes could be "validly sanctioned" or "sanctioned by the Committee or the community"? MBisanz ^talk 07:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very good improvement. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tu quoque

4) Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Key point here. Kirill 22:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, and important, but may give the mistaken impression that an editor who is harassed and provoked will be treated the same as one whose transgressions were unprovoked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various wordings that I proposed (e.g. in the workshop) during the Mantanmoreland case might be considered as alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't know why this isn't binding policy in general, and hammered in bold flashing text across both the site's header and footer.

t/e 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Hear hear. And I prefer this over 4.1 below. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

4.1) Users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind, or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Combine the above with some more recently used wording. Kirill 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sounds good. Happy‑melon 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

5) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly applicable. Kirill 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BAG

5.1) Members of the

Bot Approvals Group

are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; members are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of BAG status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A parallel; could possibly be reworded to be a bit more specific regarding BAG members' duties. Kirill 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This may have been true at some point, but I think it is closer to what happens in practice if this says that

here, concerning the nobots system (a way to exclude bots from certain pages). Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

May wish to clarify the lange to "...BAG members are not expected to be perfect." It currently says "administrators" and I don't think they all are. - Philippe | Talk 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changed; that was just a carryover from the original version above. Kirill 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following an unsuccessful MfD last year, the BAG had experienced a lot of changes. Much of its previous membership has moved on into incativity, and newer users were admitted freely under a system of "open access" whereby anybody could place their name on the BAG list. At the end of last year (I think), I ended that system with what appeared to be community support and asked all those users who had added themselves to undergo reconfirmation nominations. A handful did and all bar one succeeded, with frankly a depressingly low amount of community input. This ties in with Carcharoth's comment above - there is too much apathy around bot issues in the community at large, and I am currently working on fighting this. Anyway, the net result of this membership turnover is, it seems, a reduction in general trust of the BAG by the community. This trust is further diminished when mistakes are made, and it is discovered that very little community input actually takes place in BRFAs - caused again by this apathy. My hope is to get more users involved in bot issues. There's currently a proposal up on

inp23 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Comment on the proposal at hand - BAG members can be removed following discussion ending in consensus determined by a crat on

inp23 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Removal of BAG status... by whom? The BAG itself, or some sort of recall process?

cool stuff) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Generally community discussion on

inp23 21:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Bot operators

6) All contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator. All

user account policy

.

) was sanctioned for, among other things, inappropriate use of automated tools, unsatisfactory communication with those questioning his actions, and generally poor judgment.

Possibly implicit. Kirill 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Necessary statement though. It's not like you've got a limit on the number of principles you can pass :D Happy‑melon 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - implicit in this is the fact that if one makes a mistake one should be obliged to fix it. Orderinchaos 07:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Access to automated editing tools

7) An editor who misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns about their use, may lose the privilege of using such tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Betacommand. Kirill 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand case

1) In the

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Noted. Kirill 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MickMacNee

2) MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and edit-warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence#MickMacNee has been uncivil and disruptive. Kirill 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on MickMacNee, and as a general observation applicable to the case... There is also a broader question of "who has acted how" and how far this should be followed. Bellwether continued posting on the latest bot approval page nominally causing ST47 to have to protect that page to stop him; then again ST47 is himself one of those accused as being part of BAG so others would question if the action was premature or a type of "ownership"..... and so on. So there's a real question of "actually looking what's going on" rather than presuming. We need to look into this, and participants at this case can help by providing evidence directed to this aspect of it. For avoidance of doubt though it should be underlined that regardless, ultimately 1/ certain conducts are not okay, and 2/ a user engaging in problematic conduct is not able to point to others as being "to blame"; although we look at circumstances it is really up to each user to choose how they act. Users need to manage their conduct, whether Betacommand, MickMacNee, or any other, in the end. Communally we can give a bit of leeway here and there but not infinite. Good conduct and reasonable interactions with other editors can be tough, but it's core to the community. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would note that some of the parties labelled disruptive here, and elsewhere, including Betacommand himself, have actually made useful contributions to the debate. I intend to (in a departure from the norm) highlight the good contributions by some of the parties to this case. Arbcom cases don't have to be purely negative, do they? Also, just presenting the negative aspects tends to distort the overall picture. My view is that MickmacNee (and Bellwether) are both editors in good standing and were rather "jumped on" by defenders of Betacommand (and Betacommand), in my view purely because they were (a) new to the debate and (b) not as diplomatic in their comments. Having been following the debate for longer, I was dismayed to see this response to new people joining the debate. I won't have time to present evidence until next week (after Easter), but I just wanted to note here that the full picture may not be as presented so far on the evidence page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incredibly confused here. How have I been "disruptive" in the least? And I've looked back through my contributions regarding these matters, and I've even tried to be "diplomatic" in my dealings as well. But most confusing of all is FT2's assertion that my opening a new section below the archived discussion (per the instructions in the archived box) somehow caused ST47 to "have" to abuse his tools by protecting a page he was involved in a dispute about. That's just beyond the pale of my understanding, I guess. The section I started contained no incivility, and was simply an attempt to allow further discussion regarding the inappropriate speedy close. How did that cause ST47 to "have" to abuse the page protect tool? Bellwether ^B _C 04:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to present evidence of 'good' conduct. I suggest you do the same. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to AONLAT, I think all bot operators need to be reminded that editors are human and by its very nature a bot run can overwhelm individual human responses, leading to frustration. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address this proposed finding, based as it is on Easts evidence. Yes, he appears to have assembled an impressive list of violations there, but with some innaccuracies, transferred to the proposed finding. First, every single one of those diffs occured in places highly visible to admins and all parties involved in these disputes. I have not been forum shopping, I have raised every point on relevant notice boards or pages, nothing more. If every accusation made in East's evidence was in as serious breach of policy and made in such bad faith as is claimed, I think I would have been indefblocked long ago. The two blocks regarding my edits in discussions with/about bcb were both contested by third parties, and succesfully overturned in favour of no ban, or more appropriate and reasonable action, considering all circumstances. The first block was mistakenly issued as a 6 hour topic ban, when it was actually a 6 day full ban, duly reversed. The second (later that day) was for an obviously humorous comment (yes I know, sarcasm is a bad thing), recognised as such by many, but the blocking admin having been involved before did chose not to accept others perception of it, even the intended 'target', and additionally demonstrated he did not fully understand the history of the exchanges, as he attributed the vandalism tagging of my page by bc to have been legitimate tagging, thus pre-emptin his opinion further. This ban was again duly overturned in favour of a topic ban, only accepted by me as it had become clear to me that engaging in bcb discussions was becoming such a policy tight rope that it was putting my other activities at risk. On the charges of disruptive behaviour, I will merely point out the obvious fact that the complaints or comments about bcb did not reduce at all during my topic ban, nor did betacommands attitude change, and has now resulted in this case, and by all accounts the issues have long pre-dated my involvent, to the extent a very commond defence was, 'go and read archived talk page xyz from 2 years ago'. As for personal attacks and incivility, I have possibly on different levels done this, however, these should be taken in the context of the discussions, not the single diffs presented. In this general case, I and others are expected to remain civil after being summarliy ignored and dismissed, accused of vandalism, creating attack pages full of 'bullshit' and had reasonable requests met with a bold text capital letter red fonted rant, apparently a 'reasonable response' to discussion from betacommand. And I will oppose anyone who would try and simplify this understandable justification and make a comparison between it and betacommand's profered excuses for his behaviour as being the end result of being a regular target of normal trolls who are not attempting to engage in discussion at all. As for edit warring, this happened once, over an extremely minor issue, again, no action was deemed necessary by anyone. Furthermore, the link I was attempting to restore contained evidence of discussion of previous attempts at resolving issues with the bot, and their result, and the subsequent edit war by betacommand designed to obscure the record of these discussion merely had the end result that the same issues and requests were needlessly raised again in the following weeks on the admin noticeboard, namely but not exclusively, separating NFCC functions. Had there ever existed one ounce of initial cooperation or civility on betacommands part in response to reaonable requests, none of those diffs would even exist, and this arbcomm certainly wouldn't. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much does

Love 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

An interesting example as it was subject of a recent debate about beta ignoring a community accepted method of opting out of bot notices, in favour of his own method, requiring you to actively request an opt out from him. Note the request you show comes after being tagged multiple times and generally being annoyed by the bot. He stated his reasons for this eventually, but the debate unfortunately resulted in an extensive waste of time over a sub-page created by him to make a point [User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out] and "piss off the drama queens" or some other helpful motive. This for me merely adds to the impression that you basically have to accept his way of doing things, or nothing, as he himself stated he had decided that the community method of nobots was not acceptable, based solely on his observations, none of which could be easily confirmed by the community as he did not document this or record his rationale, it was merely another off the bat decision. Note also that he decided to employ his efforts into creating a proprietory solution, not to highlight and attempt to change the nobots procedure, which would have benefited the whole community rather than add another feather to his personal IP collection. MickMacNee (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry I dont keep records of observations from six months ago. I observed the fact that {{

β^_command 23:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Just for clarity, I assume you mean that people were putting the nobots tag on image description pages, when you say it was being abused? -- Ned Scott 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those users who supported an opt-out process, I can say that I never supported only the nobots method. You've clearly missed the point of that entire discussion, MMN. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are closer to my view than you think. Exact nobots compliance is not the real issue for me, it is in this case beta's apparent method of not wanting to find solutions to problems he encounters through participation with the community, rather to (with no notes or records) implement a 'better' system, that people must comply with. As I see it Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#zomg, you were a supporter of the proposal of any community based opt-out method that is not sanctionable purely by the personal preference of the bot operator, as his is now. You will be aware of what beta's proposed implementation of your idea was, containing a badly worded general community comment disclaimer (the waste of time I refer to above) to make a point. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is an opt-out option (when appropriate as there will be some stuff people shouldn't be able to opt out of, depending on the task) then what is the issue? -- Ned Scott 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand first unilateraly 'opted out' of the as I understand it, only standard (voluntary) single action cross bot opt out system for editors not to be tagged on talk pages, with apparently no attempt to explain the sound reasons for this, or attempt to change the current one for the benefit of everyone. He created his own system (fair enough, no reason why not to in the absence of a policy, happens with other bots by all accounts), but his system is entirely dependant on his judgement of whether you deserve to be opted out. This again reflects the earlier preference as I see it that where he believes he knows whats best for the community he will act unilaterally as a coder, rather than engage the community to fix a potential community problem (again, not a problem until it is disputed or made subject of a policy). This fact is then presented above by Lara as an example of beta acting on reasonable requests, as if the possibility of following nobots had never existed. Later complaints at this stance then resulted in the discussion you commented on, to try and form a genuine community recognised system, which he chose to disrupt pointedly. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wait. Going all the way back up to your reply to my example, what are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with

Love 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

As I explained, there is no doubt he responds remarkably well to requests that meet his personal preferences. These hardly discount the numerous examples of ignoring of, disruption of, and incivility toward, reasonable requests that he doesn't like, but others support. 'Like it or lump it' is a phrase I believe he uses often in discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added just some (from a quick scan of only the most recent page of beta's 22 archives) evidence Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2/Evidence#Betacommand_is_unresponsive_to_reasonable_requests of the most obvious evidence of non-response to requests, i.e. with no apparent reply at all, and not counting the requests that are replied to with a basic negative, or replied to by someone else not in a position to advise, as the code is closed. As a side issue these also adequately demonstrate that the bot version (or lack of one) of the bcb placed nfcc10c tag is constantly under request to be changed, counter to the idea that 'it could not be worded better'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~Half of those regard the messages left, which has been pointed out are not Betacommand's, rather they are community templates used by many who do NFCC work. Beta has established that he doesn't respond to requests that are disrespectful, which at least one of those are. I also find it necessary to point out that if you look at the messages surrounding these, you'll find evidence of the harassment Beta speaks of. Including an instance of his bot being called a "nazi".

Love 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

What has harrassment got to do with ignoring requests? Irrelevant. And I don't see a 'disrespectful' comment there. And, as you say, and I also stated, some (2 out of 6?) of the statements refer to the tags, but they are not completely separate issues, they relate to issues surrounding the fact a bot can add 10 in one go, and a user can think a bot is going to delete an image, as it is a bot placing a tag. Also note, even taking the view these have absolutely nothing to do with him (I don't accept that, he is part of the process and should act accordingly), Beta does not direct these requests to where they belong. Also, with the number of tags placed by bcb across wp, it is a reasonable assumption that anyone just browsing would get the impression they are only left by bcb. A very simple solution would have been to create a separate bcb tag long ago, had these repeated requests and observations been taken on board and not ignored/rejected. Again an example of a failure to view anything in this matter from anything less than a position of seasoned and complete knowledge of the subject. And yes, I know, 'so fix it'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Would be surprised if he's the only one. Don't see the sense in singling out one editor. Perhaps a more generic finding would lead to a broader remedy. Addressing one fellow's behavior won't stop the problem of bot handlers in this field being harried. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

What's the point of demonizing everyone who's criticized BC and his bot? If it's found that some have done so disruptively, those people need to have FOFs/Remedies/whatever. What's your point in attempting to sanction a broad spectrum of users, many with no culpability at all in the "harrying" of BC?Bellwether ^B _C 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an article has systemic problems involving misconduct by a miscellaneous and open-ended set of users, the committee sometimes imposes an editing remedy on the article ("article probation"). This identifies the location and gives administrators enhanced powers to enforce Wikipedia policies. Although I haven't yet got a proposal, I think something similar could be clagged together for bot handlers. It would obviously be different from an editing remedy on an article, but the principle would not be so far different. People who didn't step over the line from reasonable behavior to harrying would not be subject to the remedy. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I don't grant your premise. I've been observing BC's talkpage for awhile now. The trolls that visit there are usually true trolls, of the "you @#!%^@& jerk, you deleted my #@##*$^@ picture of my cousin's band!!!" or whatever. These are not a majority of the people questioning him. Most people either truly don't understand, and thus need help, not anger; or, they're bringing up legitimate concerns about the bot and/or BC's behavior. There's no need for a sweeping generic finding, when the findings can be targeted to any user's who have been truly problematic in their dealings with BC. I think you'll find there's far less of those than you think there is. Bellwether ^B _C 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an analysis of Betacomand's talk page (and that of his bot) should be undertaken to see what the truth of the matter is. Analysis from before and after the help desk was set up would help, and correlating peaks of talk page messages with the tagging runs would also help. This could all be subsumed under a heading like "educating the community" or "damage done to the community" depending on your take on the matter. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment shouldn't be taken as a statement to the effect that there are many people harrying Betacommand. I think there's more than this one fellow. I don't think there are many. I think all editors need to be reminded that bot operators are human and in their nature the number of complaints a bot run can generate is practically limitless. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

And yes, Carcharoth is perfectly correct: all bot operators need to be reminded that editors are human and by its very nature a bot run can overwhelm individual human responses, leading to frustration. I endorse that completely. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I agree except for the conclusion with Anticipation, and more fully with Bellwether. I don't see the need for this particular finding, and consider it altogether too strong if it does need to be applied. In particular I don't believe Mick has been disruptive - incivil, yes, assuming bad faith, yes, but that's been far from a one way street in this rather complex case. Orderinchaos 07:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ST47

3) ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has acted in a manner unbecoming an administrator and a member of the Bot Approvals Group, including protecting a preferred version of a page, attacking editors commenting on a bot request for approval, and generally unduly interfering with the request for approval of a bot he intended to operate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot and associated discussions. Kirill 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I concur with both the wording and the sentiment of this finding. And it's troubling to me that ST47 is continuing to attempt to label me as "disruptive" for my contributions to that discussion. Bellwether ^B _C 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why ST47 and MickMacNee are being singled out in Beta's case. It seems that any issues with these users should be taken through the standard RFC step if it is so deserved.

Love 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

) has engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and harassment of other editors; and has used automated editing tools in doing so. Further, he has engaged in inappropriate automated editing, including performing non-approved tasks and failing to respond adequately to concerns with such editing.

Too many adverbs in the last clause - I think "generally" is unnecessary. Happy‑melon 09:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a pattern of this, or is it just an isolated issue? If it's the latter, then why mention it? -- Ned Scott 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was just one incident, and with the stresses on all sides I agree with LaraLove that there seems little need to single out individual editors. Orderinchaos 07:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand

4)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Possibly missed a few things, but this should be the bulk of it. Kirill 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think the most important and most significant ommission in the above is lack of basic response to reasonable requests, for example User_talk:Betacommand/20080301#The_instructions_at_the_top_of_this_page. This is important because, unlike the other issues which can and should recieve admin action, general non-responsiveness does not, but with a bot like bcb is totally necessary. In my experience armed with this knowledge, this appears to have become betacommand's preferred modus operandi in this matter.

Comment by others:

I'm sorry, but it sounds like Kirill has made up his mind about this case before it was even open. -- Ned Scott 23:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the (anonymous?) party's comments, and support the motion in general. It should be noted that this was specifically addressed in Finding of fact 3 in the original RfAr. Orderinchaos 07:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

ST47 removed from BAG

1) ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is removed from the Bot Approvals Group, and stripped of any privileges associated with membership therein.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial thought here. Kirill 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly defensible but probably overly harsh; I will propose an alternative in due course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would want to see evidence meriting this, since where possible we try and limit the verified problems if applicable. The case and its discussions haven't progressed enough to yet see how well specific remedies against given users on either side might be underpinned. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support. John254 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~would~~ support this, instead of the ~~or a~~ "softer" alternative. Something must be done to address the blatant misuse of tools (and position in BAG), though. Bellwether ^B _C 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest removal, but with the option of returning at some future date. ie. 6 months removal or something like that. I must confess to some surprise here at seeing this remedy, as it had never occurred to me that ArbCom could do this. But now I've seen it, it is a logical extension of remedies like desysopping. Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overly extreme. A single page protection does not invalidate my knowledge or experience in this area, especially when the incident being questioned was an extreme case aggravated by the actions of BCBot's detractors. Not worth it when there's always such a backlog there. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, no one "aggravated" anything there except for you. Check what I typed. Check the tone. There is no defense for using your tools in a dispute, to enforce your version of a page, while calling me a troll. There's even less of a defense when you truly were not provoked into it. Bellwether ^B _C 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is overly harsh.

Love 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

In the circumstances, probably too strong unless he has a history of abusive interaction. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Stripped of "privileges"? I'm not fond of that language. - Philippe | Talk 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: To Carcharoth. I'd like your idea better if there was a requirement to re-apply to the Arbcom as Betacommand re-applied to the BAG in December to re-join without much input from non-BAGers. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With no comment on Betacommand's actions: If ST47's position as a member of BAG is being questioned, Betacommand's membership in the same group should be similarly considered. Happy‑melon 09:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. Firstly, I have proposed an alternative, at

§ 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

That's absolutley what I was saying: if they re-evaluate ST47's position on BAG based on the evidence presented against him, they should also re-evaluate Betacommand's position on BAG, based on the evidence presented against him. I would say that a more pertinent question to ask is "is this user an acceptable candidate to oversee the approval and control of bots on Wikipedia?". Happy‑melon 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is just the workshop page, and it's ok to just throw ideas out there.. but this made me think "WTF". If this is necessary, which I highly doubt, it's something that BAG and the greater community should handle outside of this case. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why removal has been asked here for the first time and never brought up on

WT:BAG. Anyway, as for the 'not much input from outside the BAG' -> see the recent round of reconfirmation of trial members, which was widely advertised on the Village Pump, Admin noticeboard, Bot noticeboard and yet attracted comments only from people already involved in the process. It seems that some users complain that only BAG 'votes' in their elections, but yet fail to take part in them when they're widely know. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

While the bloke may have done bad, I think one would need to make a finding based on a pattern rather than an incident. My broad observation of ST47 is that of a helpful person who does their job well. I disagree with his actions (strongly) in this case, but could only support a motion if we had a sample of similar cases where he had acted similarly. I would support an "...is/are reminded..." type admonition directed at the BAG member concerned or the BAG as a whole. Orderinchaos 07:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand restricted (I)

2)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

) is indefinitely prohibited from operating automated editing tools such as bots or scripts, to be interpreted broadly. Should he do so, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

A part of the required response here. Kirill 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding off on comment until a few days into the evidence presentation process, but this is certainly a potential outcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have a feeling that this would function in much the same way as an indefinite ban. I'm not taking a position one way or the other, but I don't think BC would continue editing under such a restriction. Something does need to be done, though, as his misuse of the bot and chronic incivility when questioned about it, are very serious issues. Bellwether ^B _C 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support this proposal. I think that BC's main interest seems to be in automated processes, so Bellwether may be right that this would lead to BC not editing. However, that would be BC's own choice, and it should not deter arbitrators from biting the bullet on the problem that BC has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to use his bot responsibly, and to accept that running a bot brings with it a responsibility to discuss in a civil manner concerns expressed about its operation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would not support this. As others have said, he does do good work, and I intend to present evidence to that effect. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overly extreme, Betacommand's bots are invaluable to the encyclopedia and unless the Committee is prepared to order Betacommand to turn over his scripts, we would lose operation of them until a replacement is made available. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non party: We already have clones or replacements for the most crucial of BCB's operations, and no one is vital enough to the project to be above the law. Happy‑melon 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh. Betacommand does invaluable work.

Love 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Doesn't seem appropriate. He's doing excellent work in this field. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

He's also harassing people via bot—see, e.g. the MickMacNee incident; good behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. (This aside from the matter of task authorization and/or sensibility, and so forth.) Kirill 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've a feeling that anybody mad enough to take on the task is likely to fall somewhat to the south of the community's standard of acceptable conduct. Since the job needs to be done, putting the one willing bot operator on a leash is probably better than stopping him altogether. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Would be nice if it were feasible. Unfortunately, since, by your logic, we can't actually do anything to him in the event of further incidents—his work being too important to stop—the leash would be pretty meaningless; a "we warn you not to do that or we'll warn you again" type of thing. I am unconvinced that (a) a willing operator could not be found for such a bot or (b) the WMF could not provide for some other means of dealing with the matter if they believe that NFCC compliance is important enough to supersede all other policies. Kirill 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaders of non-free images have had a year now to comply with the Foundation's policy, which broadly outlaws non-free images with some exceptions, and it's their job to ensure compliance. The past year seems to have been littered with ad hoc and to my mind highly suspicious delays in image tagging runs, not to mention many attempts to hamper its operation by specious arguments. Betacommand is obviously at the end of his tether and I don't blame him. We'll find another editor to run it, certainly, but I doubt we'll find a level-headed person who would put himself through that pain. I've got thirty years experience of writing computer software to professional standard, so it's not the software challenge that stops me volunteering. Even I am not mad enough to take it on. That's the problem in a nutshell. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

"to my mind highly suspicious delays in image tagging runs" - Tony, do you have even a shred of evidence for this? This is a serious accusation and I think you should say what aroused your suspicions. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this case, following on the case involving him from 200607 for the same issues, indicates a need for some serious action. Bellwether ^B _C 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, which was in April 2007 (not 2006) don't you? Or was there another one? Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--Fixed. Thanks. Bellwether ^B _C 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. The tasks that BCB does properly, it does extremely effectively. I would prefer to see a zero-tolerance policy on unauthorised BCB operations, and perhaps a revocation of all prior BCB RFBAs (wipe the slate clean to minimise the opportunity for "this is just a variation on X" arguments. Happy‑melon 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme over kill and another WTF proposal. There's a ton of other things to try before we even consider something like this. -- Ned Scott 08:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not helpful. We need Betacommand otherwise others will have to rewrite large parts of his bot anyway. Also, as others have mentioned, someone else would then have to deal with the complaints. This sounds effective when you read it the first few times but it really doesn't solve the actual problem which is the ridiculous warring over fair use images. If we worked together rather than resort to the usual trench warfare we wouldn't be having this case. The dispute over Betacommand and the bot is a symptom - not the actual problem. Sometimes being able to work together is far more worth than being right.

talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The trench warfare comparison may seem extreme, but you have a point. One of the things I've been calling for lately is stability. Rather than have certain images tagged again and again and debated again and again, decide them once and for all and then put a big sticker on saying "do not discuss again for x months". In a similar vein, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen images deleted, and then the same picture, or similar, gets uploaded under a different name. As long as people keep doing that, and we don't clamp down on it, then there will always be a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary: he does excellent work. Acalamari 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, agree with other editors here. BC, among the horrific drama, has done an absolutely immense amount of work for this encyclopedia, I don't think this is at present necessary. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but support Happymelon's ideas above (16:23, 18 March, "zero tolerance"). Re Economics Guy: I think working together was tried, unfortunately, but failed due to some of the issues in BC's behaviour that he was admonished about in the first RfAr and looks likely to be again this time. I agree though that the project is bigger than one man and if critical tasks are left to one bot then we have a problem which we should be rectifying - to do otherwise is appalling risk management. Orderinchaos 07:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the bot causes far too much trouble, and Betacommand has responded in a hostile manner to being told about this. I won't go into my example, but I think that lack of poor bots is no bad thing... as is the lack of trouble that will certainly come with it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand restricted (II)

3)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Second part. Kirill 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. I note that compared to MickMacNee, Betacommand's contributions date back to November 2005. While long-term established editors are given some leeway, the flipside of this is that they are expected to have learnt in that time how the community works. Betacommand simply hasn't, so some sort of restriction probably is needed to drive this home, while still enabling him to work with others to do the good work he does. Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, any such restriction would also apply to alternate accounts, such as

talk · contribs). Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Do we need to give admins another excuse to make potentially invalid blocks of betacommand and his bot? This could be applied to a single bot misstep. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of what Ned Scott said below, I think a little reword would be good. Some admins appear to expect Betacommand to spew rainbows and butterflies, which I don't believe can be reasonably expected of someone who takes as much flack for a thankless job as Beta does. We don't need Beta blocked for getting upset and showing it. It should be blatant violations.

Love 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

An evident straw man, and fairly representative of the defenses routinely offered of Betacommand. No one expects "rainbows and butterflies" from him, just basic civility and no personal attacks. He's not been blocked for "getting upset and showing it", either. He's been blocked for things like misusing his bot, refusing to correct damage the bot has done, attacking other editors, and being incredibly rude and uncivil. Setting up and knocking down obvious straw men isn't helpful at all. Bellwether ^B _C 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating for the record that of all the over and inappropriately used words/terms/acronyms on Wikipedia, "strawman" is the one I most loathe. It's not a strawman, so I advise you to take a seat. I'm making clear that my support of this is only if discussion takes place first and consensus is reached regarding perceived violation of policy. It is, by the way, called a hyperbole.

Love 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I don't care what you personally "loathe." You set up a straw man, whether you admit it or not. You claimed that your opponents in a debate were taking a position they were not taking. Thus, straw man. Additionally, your condescending "take a seat" comment is noted. Bellwether ^B _C 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmark it, that's fine with me. It's still not a straw man. It's a hyperbole. There is, in fact, a difference. There are admins that expect Betacommand never to get riled up; he should be a shining example of civility considering the work he does. Others, like myself, hold the exact opposite view, which is that he will have understandable frustration that will lead to breaches of civility considering the work he does. This is not a news flash. This has long been established, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop throwing the scarecrow at me.

Love 17:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

And why are you even debating this with me? I clarified my support with an obvious exaggeration. I'm not making a proposal here.

Love 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Yes. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Reply to ST47: Thats not what this says. This is basically saying if Beta is incivil or assumes bad faith, he could be blocked. What does that have to do with his bot access, unless he uses the bot in a negative way outside it's mandate?

t/e 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I would prefer a less harsh wording on this, and exclusion of "assuming bad faith". You can't force someone to change their personal judgement. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support but how exactly does this differ from the current situation except there would now be a minimum block period (I assume)? Also, this would be much better if applied more broadly to both sides of the dispute, including those who edit war with the bot in bad faith or re-upload under new filenames as Carcharoth describes above.

talk) 14:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Support this, seems like a good idea. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Orderinchaos 07:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this, for the reasons ST47 gave above me. Acalamari 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee restricted

4) MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Should be sufficient. Kirill 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Noting that as a relatively new editor (account created 30 October 2007) MickMacNee may not have yet become accustomed to community norms. An editing restriction at this stage seems inappropriate, and I think it may hinder, rather than help, MickMacNee improve as an editor. Certainly there will be more people willing to defend Betacommand than MickMacnee in the case of any future problems, and that is worrying to me. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support this, for many of the same reasons as Carcharoth above. Mick has said some things I wouldn't have. He's become angrier than I might have. But every contribution he's made that I've seen has been made in good faith, which is more than can be said about Betacommand in this case. Subjecting them both to the same restriction seems overly harsh. Bellwether ^B _C 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A year is probably overly extensive, however this user and other detractors to Betacommand who present their concerns appropriately must be addressed. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I have had two bans rescinded regarding bcb, and users such as Laralove and St47 are admins, I take issue with 2 aspects of this proposal: the scope and the single executor. I believe the evidence shows that opinions of what has and hasn't been reasonable on my part in this case is varied, and allowing that possible inconsistency to be applied by admins to unrelated acts is unfair, accepting the principle of AGF. I refer specifically to the differing views about my original proposal page, and disputed opinions over the civility of the language of the new bot approval. I also am concerned at the implication that just 1 admin would be needed to ban me for a year for the most minor of infractions in an unrelated area. My previous upheld ban length in an unrelated area has been 72 hours. I find this to be an unneccesarily fear inducing measure, and against the principle of no retrospective punishments. MickMacNee (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the assertions made in the case about MMN's behavior, I don't understand why he and ST47 are the only editors being singled out. I don't support action being taken against other editors in Beta's case. The fact that RFAR is allowed to be used in a way as to bypass RFC for other users is beyond me. I'm not one who's previously participated in ArbCom cases, but in that it is used to deal with the actions of more than the "defendant", so to speak, I'm very disappointed.

Love 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Cannot support this. Admonishing or perhaps mentorship is more sensible. In any case, almost certainly not of duration one year. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a string of remedies like this are going to help. The number of editors who have been uncivil in the BCB war is extremely large, and it seems a bit unfair to single out MickMacNee just because his was the most high-profile. Happy‑melon 16:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too harsh and pretty much unnecessary. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. Relatively new user who got carried away but weren't adviced in time or supported when he was met with incivility from Betacommand in return. A broader remedy would be better. Some of us should have known better - those of us who have been here longer even more so. MickMacNee isn't in the latter group so it seems odd to single him out.

talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agreed - harsh/unhelpful and a possible

WP:BITE situation. This seems to have been a case where a user became rather upset after dozens of notices were dropped on his talk page and an adequate response to his concerns was not profferred. Furthermore, many editors were incivil and/or in breach of policy at some point during this process, singling out the most noticeable seems out of proportion. Orderinchaos 07:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard enforcement. Kirill 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by
AGK

Proposed principles

Bot operators (I)

1) Editors who operate robot accounts are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are expected to maintain

civility

at all times, and to ensure that they remain approachable by those with concerns over bots they operate. Occasional lapses in communication quality during heated debates may be tolerated, but repeated, unbecoming conduct will result in the loss of bot-operation privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prefer an alternative to the effect that users operating automated tools should remember they are responsible for the edits made, and for maintaining an appropriate standard of communication and responses concerning these. A user becoming aware that an automated tool they use is leaving unacceptably substandard messages should either address the matter with the coder or BAG, or cease using the tool for that task until remedied. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree with FT2s wording.

Love 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed.

§ 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Yes for the first part, but I would say that the "from

inp23 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Actually, I don't think my proposal sets any abnormally high bars of civility to Bot Operators: essentially, it simply says "if you're going to operate a bot, be civil and allow others to get in touch about the bot". Nothing unreasonable :)

§ 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I support all of this, though I don't think it goes far enough. Because of the potentially huge impact of bots, bot operators have an extra duty to remain approachable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should carefully control our use of the words 'trust' and trusted.' What is the intent here? Jd2718 (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot operators (II)

2) Editors who operate robot accounts are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This expectation extends into the edits made by the editor's robot accounts: bot operators are directly responsible for the edits made by bots the operate. Bot operators are expected to ensure that they remain approachable by those with concerns over bots they operate: repeated failures to remain approachable and to be open to discussion may result in withdrawal of bot operations privileges

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support this.

Love 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed, per the below comment by Arbitrator FT2 regarding the similar proposal, #Bot operators (I):

Prefer an alternative to the effect that users operating automated tools should remember they are responsible for the edits made, and for maintaining an appropriate standard of communication and responses concerning these. A user becoming aware that an automated tool they use is leaving unacceptably substandard messages should either address the matter with the coder or BAG, or cease using the tool for that task until remedied.

Thoughts on the new version?

§ 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Bot accounts

3) Robot accounts exist to improve the efficiency of operations on Wikipedia. Whilst they are a valuable medium of reducing workload which would otherwise be carried out by editors, they must still be kept under scrutiny. Robot accounts which ultimately cause more disruption than benefit to the project as a whole are harmful to Wikipedia, and should not be permitted to edit.

While I may agree with this, I don't believe it applies to BCBot. The work done by this bot is invaluable. The benefit is greater than the disruption at this point.

Love 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Initial proposal, but I'm open to tweaking, particularly over the ending: "and should not be permitted to edit."—I find that rather clumsy, personally. Thoughts?

§ 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Not sure it's necessary when we have

WP:BAG. If this is the case then one would lose their bot approval. -- Ned Scott 07:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

But for example, there is no technical reason a Bot can't remove redlinked cats, and BAG only reviews technical reasons, so a person saying removing redlinked cats is a bad idea for a non-technical reason, really has no where to go to get the bot unapproved. MBisanz talk 08:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted though that BetacommandBot never had approval to remove redlinked categories. It only had permission to remove categories debated at CfD. See here. Due to extremely poor and inconsistent use of edit summaries, analysis of BetacommandBot's edits in this area are proving difficult. I've made a very brief start at User:Carcharoth/BetacommandBot and category work, but a fully automated analysis will take time to set up. It involves getting the page history and page logs of the categories in question, and then comparing the times of creation/deletion with the time of BetacommandBot's edits. If the category had been deleted following a CfD, then fine. If not, then further investigation into whether others later improved or corrected the bot's work is needed. Betacommand insists that this work improved the encyclopedia, but I doubt this. From what I am seeing, it turned one set of broken or incomplete edits into another, but less visible, set of broken edits, and no humans noticed or bothered to clear it up. A classic example of bots disrupting pages in order to force humans to do work that isn't being done. Except that here it didn't work. It seems that this strategy has worked in terms of non-free images, but for redlinked categories this (dubious) strategy seems to have failed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the BAG

4) The Bot Approvals Group provides the function to the community of scrutinising the operations of robot accounts on Wikipedia, by controlling robot activity. The BAG undertakes such control by controlling which bot are permitted to operate, how they may operate, and which tasks they may perform. The Group serves to represent the opinions and viewpoints of the Community at large, and should operate as such. The BAG is expected to respond to the concerns expressed by the editors which it represents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

BAG is also expected to understand policy and to consider the encyclopedia's (and in this case, the foundation's) best interest. They are expected to, having experience in this sort of thing, receive a certain degree of latitude in this way. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(commenting here as a non-party, but in the parties' section) I'm hesitant at inserting a clause concerning the Wikimedia Foundation, owing to the fact that the Arbitration Committee's scope ends very firmly at the ends of the English Wikipedia, and neither extends into other projects, nor onto a Foundation-wide basis.

§ 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed based on initial thought: the BAG should operate as an

§ 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Finally, a clear statement of what BAG is actually supposed to do. Support this (possibly subsitute "raised" for "expressed"). Happy‑melon 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked accordingly. Do you prefer the current version?

§ 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

5) Editors who become involved in disputes on Wikipedia should seek to actively engage in the procedures detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Dispute resolution

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.

§ 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

, for a period of 6 months from the date of case closure. During that time, he is stripped of all privileges associated with membership therein.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

ST47 suspended from BAG

1)

Bot Approvals Group

I wasn't aware that such extreme measures were taken due to single admin actions, especially where this wouldn't really prevent me from abusing the tools in the future for my own evil agenda. Unless you're suggesting that I be sanctioned due to my accusations of disruption, where it seems that a more appropriate action would be civility parole. But the only issue with my BAG actions is that I protected a special-case page which was going to be the subject of unthinkable drama. Unless you count that I support the operation of bots that enforce policy?? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Maxim stated below, people typically aren't blocked or deadminned for one bad issue - they're rarely even formally cautioned for a single offense. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have supported this "softer" alternative, if ST47 hadn't continued to try to claim his reversion of a page to his preferred version, and then protection of that page was justified. As such, I support the harsher version. Something must be done about the blatant misuse of tools, and abuse of BAG "authority" in that discussion. Bellwether ^B _C 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there was discussion among several BAG members to protect the page immediately after it was closed. It was decided that we should wait, to prevent excessive drama (Like, say, an arbcom case) but it was then decided rather quickly to protect it due to continued discussion, which is what got the case reopened in the first place and caused this whole debacle. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this discussion?

inp23 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

In private, between BAG members. As the community is well aware, off-wiki discussion does not constitute a binding decision, which is why it was not entered into evidence. My point is that had I not reverted or protected, someone else would quickly have done so. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And which BAG members, and what sort of private? I recall not being invited to such a discssion, though I would have been on IRC at the time of it...

inp23 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Too harsh. Less harsh than the other proposal, still too harsh.

Isn't IRC great?!? :) Bellwether ^B _C 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :p
inp23 19:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Love 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Support. ST47, as a named operator of the proposed bot under approval discussion (actuall discussion after speedy approval overturned), actively suppressed discussion relevant to the community view of the bot approval [1] MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a possible and less-extreme alternative to

§ 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Unnecessary and way too harsh. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too harsh. Maybe just a principle that all discussions should exist or be explained on-wiki if they are to be used as the basis of non-emergency admin actions? MBisanz ^talk 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it's a softer version of

§ 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

requests for bot approvals

BetacommandBot discontinued

2) BetacommandBot's operations are to be halted immediately, upon the closure of this case, and the account

.

Excessive until a working replacement is activated. I prefer to invalidate individual tasks or issue a warning/admonishment to Betacommand/place the bot on some sort of parole. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Betacommand would be willing to hand over the bot code, and "start a-fresh", bot-less and free? I don't think this proposal is excessive; at the end of it all, the project has experienced a large volume of drama as a result of BCB's existence, and its removal will, ultimately, be of a benefit to all.

§ 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

If he's willing to do so, then we have nothing to worry about. If he is not willing to do so, then I have an issue with discontinuing the bot. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue, however, is stopping BetacommandBot—not stopping it, so long as there's a replacement available. Suggesting such a thing might simply encourage the code holder to withhold the bot's code, in order to be given a free reign to continue running the bot.

§ 07:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Absolutely not. No support for this.

Love 16:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

There is evidence, however, that highlight that something of this nature is necessary. What do you mean by support—community support? Your personal support?

§ 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

From me is what I meant. But I doubt you'd gain community consensus to halt BCB at this time.

Love 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed.

§ 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Never going to happen. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, this case is an opportunity to end the drama once-and-for-all. Evidence shows that BetacommandBot has been a cause of disputes, conflict and general drama on- and off-Wikipedia; handing the task of image tagging and notification over to others is going to pay off in terms of efficiency and lack of drama.

§ 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I am transferring NFC tagging to a new bot once this drama settles down and the drama fest surrounding the new bot dies off.

β^_command 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I'd still be interested in having this remedy passed, as something of a "safety valve" in case that never falls through. Having said that, I think we can trust Betacommand to be true to his word. Perhaps it's best if this is passed anyway?

§ 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This is in line with the evidence and with the proposed

WP:TW have it taken away. Editors who misuse bot accounts, and there is evidence presented that Betacommand has done so, should be treated in exactly the same way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

)'s rollback privilege is left in place for {nine/six} months. This revocation extends to all secondary accounts operated by Betacommand. Betacommand may re-apply for the rollback privilege after nine months has elapsed, or appeal to this Committee for reinstatement.

I disagree with the BetacommandBot being banned: if it's to be stopped at all, it should be retired gracefully, not banned; especially not after all the excellent work it's done in its existence. It should also only be stopped if there are other bots available to replace its tasks. Acalamari 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose unless a bot substantially duplicating the work done by BCB is ready to go at the end of this case. Absolutely the wrong message for this committee to send. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of Betacommand's rollback privileges in place

3) For inappropriate use of the

talk · contribs

Proposed, per

§ 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The consensus about rollback use is a very grey area. I'm not sure what the related policy and guideline pages say now, but people, such as BC, were getting rollback before anything was clear. What I wrote in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Rebuttal to Evidence presented by User:Neokamek likely applies to this situation as well. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you specify Betacommand's

talk · contribs) which have at one time or another, been granted the Rollback flag. Do you want to clarify maybe? And maybe the shorter 6 month period, if his re-application to the arbcom? MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I have inserted an variable clause, meaning we can pick between six and nine, for the time being at least—obviously, a decision will have to be made eventually, as to which to pick. Additionally, I have inserted a tie-up clause, extending the remedy to all accounts operated by BC.

§ 07:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I don't think this is necessary: rollback is a lot less of a deal than adminship is, as it can be granted/revoked at any time. It's just a simple tool, and if it's misused, it can be removed very easily. I think that Betacommand should be allowed to have it back at a later date if he agrees only to use it for reverting vandalism/spam; and if it's used incorrectly again, he will have it revoked and won't get it back for a long time after that. I don't believe any ArbCom restriction is needed here, for if he loses rollback twice, administrators wouldn't be very inclined to give it him back for a third time. I also think an ArbCom sanction involving rollback would inflate the importance of the rollback userright group...something we've been working hard to avoid. Acalamari 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Acalamari. As there is no formal method of revocation, there should be no such thing as an "emergency" revocation. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary - ArbCom/bureaucrats do not grant or revoke rollback, it was meant to be a simple tool given to users who can manage it responsibly. It was granted by admin, abused, revoked, I don't think anyone will return it to him, so a statement to this effect isn't neeeded. Orderinchaos 07:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot support the "halfway there" approach the proposal presents. When the rollback restriction ends, the only determinant whether Betacommand gets rollback back or not is who sees the request first at

cool stuff) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

1) Users who operate accounts with the 'bot' flag have been entrusted with a tool which has the potential to cause significant disruption if used improperly, or against community consensus.

Proposals by User:Happy-melon

Proposed principles

Bot accounts potentially disruptive

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Happy‑melon 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for this and the one below it might be worth mentioning BRFA as the medium for assessing bot suitability (technically) and (hopefully more so in the future) community consensus.

inp23 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Everybody complains about the BAG, yet usually doesn't take part in the process. It's not like BAG members decide everything in their evil mind. We'd like more community input! Everybody is delighted when they see input from outside the usual 10-12 users. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot operators expected to follow consensus

2) Users who operate accounts with the 'bot' flag are expected to ensure that their use of said account is constructive and in line with community consensus. While it is assumed that operators of bot accounts act in good faith, a bot account should never be used in a manner that its operator knows to be destructive or against community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Happy‑melon 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. However, is the second sentence about good faith in line with the topic of bot operators following consensus. Perhaps a separate principle could be created named something like "Bot operators expected to act in good faith"? Captain panda 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are also required to follow the limits of their BRFA. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this apply to every editor? Mr.Z-man 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

BetacommandBot used to deliver unnecessary messages

1) On February 18 2008, Betacommand caused BetacommandBot to post fifty messages to the talk page of User:MickMacNee, which were not directly related to MickMacNee's contributions to Wikipedia. This occurred after an on-wiki argument between Betacommand and MickMacNee. MickMacNee did not request these messages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is no requirement that the wording of arbitration findings be neutral. Kirill 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be in Betacommand's interest either to explain and/or to apologize for this behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Needs clarification - this was not a bug or a mistake, and was not repaired by bc. It was later stated by bc twice that this was a deliberate exercise to make a point. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(non-party) Not meaning to be a pain, but do you have diffs of him stating that? They would be useful here. Orderinchaos 07:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think [2] and [3] are the diffs your looking for. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Fairly neutral (IMO) wording. Happy‑melon 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title is a little unclear; it could appear to mean "in the past, BCB posted unnecessary messages". The substance makes the intention plain, but perhaps a better title would be "BetacommandBot was used to post unnecessary messages"? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. How about "utilised"? Happy‑melon 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most prior cases have used the terminology "used", rather than "utilised", in their respective decisions. For example,

§ 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Grammatically, it's still incorrect: Betacommand was utilised to... x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back to "used", per the prior cases - I don't think it'll be a problem. Happy‑melon 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "spam" be the most accurate word here? "Unnecessary messages" seems a bit oblique. Bellwether ^B _C 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that that's what it was, but the wording should be as neutral as humanly possible. Happy‑melon 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kirill points out above, if it's spam, it's spam. I think you should retitle it as such for clarity. Bellwether ^B _C 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about the exact words; if one of us adopts the proposal for the final decision, we will fiddle with the wording as needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This finding establishes that the problem is not merely a matter of a tetchy and sullen bot operator, but an operator who has used his software for malicious purposes. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Needs better wording, because this will be really used out of context if it passes. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording might need tweaking, but I agree with its sentiment. Orderinchaos 07:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

BAG reform I

1) Membership of the

bureaucrats

. All current members of the Bot Approvals Group shall retain their position for a period of three months subsequent to the closure of this case, whereupon they shall be removed from the Group unless they have in that time been re-appointed through the RfB-like process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. RfA is stupid and mostly broken, BAG members should be chosen by users interested in BAG and bots, not the types of users who visit RfA. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again (see below), where is the community?? The level of technical expertise required for BAG is limited - certainly some proficiency is required, but running a bot of your own would be sufficient. What BAG is lacking (and why it is virtually impotent except as far as it has control of who the crats give the bot flag to) is the authority of community backing. Those who frequent RfA know what they're looking for - a stable, consistent character who is polite, courteous and responsive, and who has interests in admin tasks. Those who frequent RfB are looking for a stable, consistent character who is polite, courteous and responsive, and who is interested in bureaucrat tasks. What do we need in our BAG members? Stability and consistency, politeness and responsiveness, and an interest in bot-related issues. I fail to see how "the types of users who visit RfA" are unqualified to appoint BAG members. Happy‑melon 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA is a forum not compatible with BRFA, either in the way BRFA currently works or in the way it seems most people would like it to work. BRFA is not a vote, RfA (let us please face it) is. BRFA should not be a straight vote, because that would promote the sort of things we try to avoid, such as minimum requirements to run a bot, a popularity contest, inane standards, and bots that need to be modified to the point of ineffectiveness in order to gain the community's support. BRFA should not be made into an overcomplicated process, because that will simply cause more bot operators to become frustrated and want to evade it. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my opposition to the suggestion that BRFAs be incorporated into RfA voiced below. I couldn't agree more that RfA is a completley inappropriate place for BRFAs. For the appointment of BAG members, however, it is perfectly suited. Happy‑melon 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right, I got confused between two proposals. BAG elections are best done with people who understand what they're voting on, folding it into RfA would probably be detrimental. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Fairly useless without the remedies below. Regardless of the merits of the proposal itself, some comments from Arbitrators as to whether they feel they have jurisdiction to impose process (as opposed to policy) changes such as these would be welcome. Happy‑melon 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we use an RFB process to elect BAG, it will probably be a year before we get anyone on the group — Stability + consistency + politeness + responsiveness + familiarity with multiple programming languages + liked by 85% of RFA regulars + willing to go through the process == not many users. Mr.Z-man 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I called it "RfB-like" only in the sense that it's a nomination process which would run on RfA, but is not RfA. Most of the current BAG membership should be reappointed under such a system without too much drama if their past work has been good. As the position doesn't convey any technical abilities, I'm sure the entry bar would settle between RfA and RfB, neither of which are short of candidates. If the crats realise that the population of BAG is falling due to overly high entry requirements, they'll lower the bar until an equilibrium is found. Happy‑melon 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not require any technical abilities? I would most certainly oppose any candidate who has no bot running or script writing experience. The job of BAG is not just to say: "Yes, this sounds like a good idea, go ahead" but to say "Yes, this sounds like a good idea and this implementation will work, go ahead." Not to mention the fact that many RFA/RFB candidates are opposed due to things that have little or nothing to do with being an admin/bureaucrat. It only makes sense to assume that the same would occur if you replicate the process for BAG membership. From reading the bureaucrat discussion after Riana's RFB, the bureaucrats do not seem to take it upon themselves to lower the consensus-bar. Mr.Z-man 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "technical abilities" I meant additional features of the MediaWiki software. Admins have delete/protect/block/rollback/etc, crats have rename/makebot/makesysop, but BAG members don't have any of those, so the actual 'power' that comes with the position is less than for crats or admins. Although some of the votes cast at RfA/RfB are certainly ridiculous, they are inevitably outweighed by rational and sensible comments, and the process has proven effective (if not foolproof) at selecting suitable candidates. Happy‑melon 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to all of these BAG proposals, one, I'm not convinced that BAG is broken, and two, if it is we should handle it outside of arbitration. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the policy and process by which BAG oversees bot operations is outside the scope of arbitration. These remedies are merely intended to give BAG back some teeth, as they currently have almost no authority except to control who the crats give the bot flag to. once a bot has the flag, it is almost always the community who controls bot operations, and reviews and revokes bot approvals. BAG should be the ones controlling the bots on behalf of the community - that's why they're there. Happy‑melon 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern in the past has been that the bot operator community will ignore BAG if BAG are given more teeth. The real problem here is, I think, bot operators who think they have a great idea, love doing the programming and technical stuff, but hate the process of getting BAG approval or discussing things with the wider community, but instead want to carry on playing with their toys. Combining this attitude of disdain for process and community input with someone who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia (which causes people to support the aims regardless of how those aims are accomplished), ends up with this sort of mess. Which is why arbitration has turned out to be needed again. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Take it to

inp23 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agreed. Some progress is being made there. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still complaining about how BAG members are elected? Let's speak about how many person cared about weighting their opinion there. And you can't say that it wasn't widely advertised. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I like this: an RfB/RfA-like process for electing BAG members? Imagine "Oppose - we simply do not need any more BAG members", "Oppose - not enough mainspace/project-space edits", or even "Oppose - see no need for this user to become a BAG member". Ugh. Acalamari 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG reform II

2) Membership of the Bot Approvals Group shall be a temporary position granted for a period of one year from the date of appointment. At the end of that one-year period the member will lose their position within the Group unless reappointed by the RfB-like process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Makes no sense without the proposal above. Arbitrators see request above. Exact duration of appointment is of course negotiable. Happy‑melon 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes the proposal above even worse. If we used something like this for RFB or RFA, we probably wouldn't have more than a couple bureaucrats or a few dozen admins. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just throwing ideas out. I'm thinking that BAG is actually closer to the ArbCom than to Bureaucrat status - they are a small group apointed to represent the community in a particular field (dispute resolution for ArbCom, bot control for BAG). Neither position conveys any technical abilities, but if the ArbCom says someone is banned, an admin will block them, or if the ArbCom says someone is desysopped, a steward will desysop them. In the same way, if BAG says a bot is OK, a crat will flag them; if BAG says a bot should be deflagged, a crat will deflag them. As such, in a way, BAG membership is actually more prvileged than crat status, so should perhaps be reconfirmed in the same way as the ArbCom. Just a thought. Happy‑melon 10:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom voting process is totally different than RFA. There's no discretionary ranges where the quality of votes is analyzed - there's X vacancies on the committee and the X people with the highest support% fill those vacancies, regardless of how high the support% actually is or what the quality of the votes is. Mr.Z-man 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Take it to
inp23 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, wrong venue as Martin said and wrong idea: first you discuss, you take part in the process, then you can complain about the fact that it doesn't work (not speaking strictly about you, Happy Melon). If the community doesn't care to participate, they can't complain either. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG reform III

2) The Bot Approval Group shall work with the community to create a Bot approval policy which shall prescribe the process of obtaining authorisation to run automated- or semi-automated editing tools. This policy shall incoroporate the opportunity for community discussion as well as technical evaluation. The policy shall also incorporate a process for the review and/or revocation of said authorisation. The Bot Approvals Group shall be responsible for the enforcement of this policy and administration of its process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Process creep. You make the request, we look at it, we ask you to try it out, we approve it, crats flag it. Granted that there should be some mention of revocation of approval. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where does the community fit into that, admittedly efficient, process? Happy‑melon 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever it pleases them to insert their constructive comments or suggestions. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It is surprising to note that there is actually no clear-cut policy, guideline or framework other than precedent to prescribe the operation of

WP:BRFA. This is essentially a demand that the community establish such a framework. If passed, we will then pick the current BRFA process apart, add a few caveats, and put it back together again, hopefully in a more community-oriented form. These three remedies together dramatically increase the authority of BAG not only to oversee the approval of bots, but also their continued operation and (potential) revocation of authorisation. Making BAG an 'elected' position makes them more answerable to the community, but also gives them more authority to speak for the community. Happy‑melon 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Wrong venue. Take it to

inp23 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

There's nothing wrong with the ArbCom telling us to do something we're doing already. This proposal in particular is specifically not making any policy declarations. Happy‑melon 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My boierplate response was in fact different for this particular remedy pointing directly to the page where helpful discussion is already taking place. Consensus on whether a new policy as opposed to tightening up of the rules on WP:BRFA is something for the community, not ArbCom, to decide, in the appropriate venue.

inp23 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposals by east718

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution

1) Despite the amount of harassment or trolling levelled in their direction, users should not respond to inappropriate behavior in kind or engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism across different forums. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the

dispute resolution

mechanism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 17:01, March 16, 2008

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

2) Administrative tools may not be used to further one's own position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not sure how relevant this is, unless we intend to delve into the blocks and unblocks of the bot. Betacommand himself no longer has access to said tools. Kirill 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

To Kirill, if I may: I believe this has to do with Arthur's deletion of the opt-out page, but it could also be expanded to include ST47's misuse of page-protect at the BRFA, and Maxim's block of Mick in the middle of his (Maxim's) oddly trying to "topic ban" Mick from the ANI/B page. Bellwether ^B _C 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. There has already been disagreement over whether Coren (who blocked Arthur) should be a party to the case. If Maxim gets added, then people might start trying to dredge up every single admin action relating to Betacommand, his bot, or the disputes surrounding them. While that might be good (to clear up some misunderstandings where people may have misused the admin tools), it would also start to make the case unwieldy. It would be good if the arbitrators could try and set the scope of the case, subject of course to the evidence presented. ie. Don't overly restrict bounds of evidence, but give guidance as to what is not likely to progress beyond evidence (ie. no need to do proposals based on certain incidents, even though they form back of the background to the case). Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 17:01, March 16, 2008

Fair criticism

3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision-making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as

unbridled criticism across all available forums

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's worth noting that this statement is taken verbatim from a previous case. Kirill 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks familiar, but remind me which case? (Darn, I usually remember these things.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, although there's slight differences. Daniel (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 17:01, March 16, 2008

Wikipedia doesn't have "leaders". Happy‑melon 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but there is a power structure, which I was referring to.

east.718 at 18:55, March 16, 2008

Which isn't supposed to exist, so the ArbCom isn't going to pass a statement that refers to it. Happy‑melon 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative actions

4) Needlessly provocative acts can lead to disruption, in which the provoker must share a degree of responsibility for the consequences. Conversely, reasonable and mature self-management is expected even if provoked. Attempts by others to provoke should be ignored or

dispute resolution

sought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 17:01, March 16, 2008

Bad blood

5) A user who feels the need to comment on the actions of someone with whom they have a history of dispute should seek impartial advice and allow others to handle the matter who have no such connection, in order for clear neutrality of handling. If no impartial uninvolved editor or administrator is evident, the matter can be passed to the

administrators' incidents noticeboard

, followed by disengagement, for communal consideration which allows the originator to cede it to others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. east.718 at 18:55, March 16, 2008

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Betacommand prohibited from running bot tasks without approval

1) Betacommand may no longer run bot tasks without approval, or with his own approval. All unapproved tasks, broadly defined, must be vetted by the Bot Approvals Group or whatever process exists to determine the viability of a bot task.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Perhaps a more focussed form of wording for the proposal. It may be possible to improve this further:

"Betacommand is prohibited from using an automated or semi-automated tool to make high speed edits to Wikipedia other than via a tool and version that has been explicitly approved by BAG, and for a purpose and in a manner that has been explicitly approved by BAG. In seeking such approval BAG is reminded that betacommand appears as in the role of requestor, not BAG member."

"For this purpose, a modification (whether from a coding or operative sense) of an existing tool that affects its purpose, end function, or impact and nature of posting on the wiki, without prior authorization, shall count as an unapproved tool."

The thing to remember is, bot coders may well constantly improve their tools. But it sounds like significant modifications in the case of Betacommandbot have perhaps led to issues. To what extent is this technically so? Might a line be useful here, and technically what is "safe" modification and what is not? Is the safe limit the point at which its actions change in a way that a wiki user would notice? Seems the best definition and has the benefit of being a "

bright line". But is this appropriate or is it too constrictive 1/ for all bots generally, 2/ for BCBot specifically in view of past events? For me this seems a valid thing - bots are fine but significant changes to coding, or changes that modify their end-operation, or use for unapproved purposes, are probably easy lines to draw that identify many of the areas the objecting parties have concerns about. (Clarification of this technical bot area would be helpful at /Evidence.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This is more or less a distilled version of

WP:BOT... --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed. east.718 at 18:55, March 16, 2008

Perhaps be more prescriptive: "Betacommand is prohibited from running bot tasks, broadly defined, without explicit approval from the Bot Approvals Group". This proposal is conditional on the ArbCom upholding the authority of the BAG, which is by no means certain. Perhaps a mention of the opportunity for community discussion and consensus would be helpful. Happy‑melon 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Betacommand is prohibited from running bot tasks, broadly defined, without explicit approval from the community" would be most accurate and best, since the BAG answers to the community, and the Arbcom doesn't have authority anyway to say the BAG is the supreme power on bots--thats a general community function.

t/e 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This is already the case as defined in

inp23 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agreed. The problem here is more a definition one: what BC viewed as a previously approved task, others didn't. Does he need to approve each VARIANT of a task? Who's going to handle that? - Philippe | Talk 03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone notices a discrepancy, it's generally accepted that it should be reported to

inp23 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

THis already applies, he just chooses to ignore it. Viridae ^Talk 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Lawrence Cohen

Proposed principles

Consensus and the BAG

1) While bots and bot owners normally work through and get approval to do specific tasks via consensus at the "bot approval group" (BAG), the BAG has no more power and authority than any other group working together. The community often defers to them because the area is very technical, and because it's often unseen. However, any large consensus that forms in regards to a bot can supercede any BAG decisions or choices, as is normal for any other consensus matters. The BAG answers to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just some thoughts.

t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

What about some language specifying that clarifies that BAG is strongly encouraged to listen to community feedback during bot approval processes; when a bot approval is speedily closed and found to be controversial, it should be immediately reopened...? - Philippe | Talk 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is the issue that ST47 misused his tools on: enforcing an inappropriate speedy close. Bellwether ^B _C 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BAG or any other niche subproject or project (BAG, wikiprojects, whoever) can do whatever it wants to do, but always has to yield to wider community consensus.

t/e 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Actually BAG does listen to the community. The problem is that the community doesn't speak. Usually Bot request are approved with little or no input from anybody outside the usual circe of bot operators who keep an eye on BRFA. It's not that we don't want to hear, but that there's nothing that can be heard. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the community spoke in this case, and the BAG turned a deaf ear. Since you don't seem able to judge whether the community wants to speak or not in specific cases, maybe all requests should be held open for a minimum amount of time so that people can comment. —Random832 (contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and community, bots and bot owners

2) Bot owners are absolutely responsible to and answerable to the community. The community has full authority to restrict, change the allowed scope of, or otherwise oversee any bot operations without "having" to go through any specialized BAG processes if the consensus and needs of the community support doing so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.

t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Bot functions

3) Bots are only allowed to run functions that the community has authorized.

Proposed.

t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Vacuously true, but probably worth stating. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of bot rights, blocking of bots

4) Any bot that is used for disruption, POINT violations, or any function outside their allowed scope may be blocked or restricted at any time, as if it were any other normal account, by the community. Bots and their operators, irregardless of their value or function, are not exempt from any and all communal norms and no body on Wikipedia has the authority to grant such exemptions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see a problem with occasionally using a bot for a function outside out of its approved scope. If that's not allowed under any circumstances, well someone ought to send

MFD. Maxim_(talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Then why even have approvals based on narrowly defined functions? This is part of the major problem, where Beta has ran functions outside his normal scope. People clearly are not happy with this, so it needs Arbiter decision making on this.

t/e 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

It is to weed out bad ideas and incompetent operators; intelligent operators with brilliant ideas such as Misza13 are generally allowed to sidestep BRFA, because we're not a bureaucracy. Lastly, it's not the arbitrators' job to modify policy. east.718 at 18:41, March 16, 2008

No modification of policy here; I'm just asking the AC to clarify this basic question, since half the AN/ANI flame wars revolve around it. Can the community (not the bot regulars--wider community) bot and restrict bots and their operators? Does the community have primacy over the bots and BAG, or do the bots and BAG have primacy over the community?

t/e 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Do you think the "intelligent operators with brilliant ideas" clause applies to someone who ran a process to rack up edits to bloat the main page history, or who set an image tagging bot up to spam a particular user's talk page? —Random832 (contribs) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed.

t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Basically, what East is trying to get at (I believe) is that this is worded in a way that would justify blocking a bot serving a helpful function, based solely on procedural grounds (lack of approval) which is generally

not how we do things. Mr.Z-man 02:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

. However, administrators may be blocked for editorial misconduct on the same basis as any other established user.

Proposals by John254

Proposed principles

Bot and script assisted disruption

1) Bot and script assisted disruption can rapidly damage thousands of pages, and may require weeks of effort to reverse. Consequently, to protect Wikipedia from harm, users who repeatedly employ bots or scripts to disrupt large numbers of pages may be subject to extended site bans. Editing restrictions are an unsatisfactory remedy for the improper use of bots or scripts, as thousands of pages may be disrupted before administrators can respond to a complaint on

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John254 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Blocking administrators for the alleged abuse of administrative privileges

2) Blocks may not be used to sanction administrators for the abuse of administrative privileges. Blocking administrators on the basis of their blocks, page protections, or deletions will almost certainly result in a

Arbitration Committee, or, in cases where urgent action is required, communicated directly to a steward

Out of curiosity, was this addition to the policy discussed anywhere before John254 added it to the page a month ago? It's certainly a new interpretation of both the spirit of the blocking policy and of the community's remit to issue sanctions. Kirill 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion needs to take place within the community as to whether this is a correct interpretation. Certainly some blocks of administrators for inappropriate admin actions have only escalated disputes, but that does not in itself mean that these blocks inevitably do so. Thanks are due to John254 for being responsible in noting that he included this aspect in blocking policy but I think we should make sure it is endorsed on a wider basis. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions, which I wrote. John254 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the section was not discussed before it was added to the policy, it has remained in the policy because its justification is clear from the observation of past cases in which administrators have been blocked on the basis of allegations of the misuse of administrative privileges. Such blocks have almost always been summarily reversed, and have never, to my knowledge, had any effect other than to aggravate disputes. See, for example,

Betacommand, and Philwelch's block of Centrx. I believe that the community has long considered the blocking of administrators for allegedly inappropriate administrative actions to itself be inappropriate, though this sentiment has only recently been memorialized in the policy. John254 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Furthermore, blocking is an an inherently inappropriate sanction for the abuse of administrative privileges, because it is not preventative: even administrators whose own accounts are blocked can continue to block or unblock other users. If we really wished to consider the misuse of administrative privileges to be within "the community's remit to issue sanctions", then we would permit a steward to temporarily desysop an administrator under circumstances in which a community discussion indicates a consensus for this action. However, the power to order the removal of administrative privileges under non-emergency circumstances is currently held exclusively by the Arbitration Committee, because of concerns that community desysopping would result in good administrators being desysopped simply because they are unpopular with disruptive users who they have blocked or otherwise oppose. John254 04:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that John254 added this line to the blocking policy. I agree with it, and think that a substantial portion of the admin community do already shy away from blocking other admins for these reasons, but it probably does need more discussion at policy level. BTW, John, you aren't a party to this case, are you? Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I would be very hesitant about this principle simply because there may come a time that a block is an appropriate solution. If you changed it to "Blocks generally should not..." I'd have no issues. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're dealing with a compromised administrative account which is being used to delete the main page, no one would blame another administrator for blocking the offending account. However, a block would likely be ineffective, as the compromised account would simply unblock itself -- the correct action in this case would be to contact a steward to request an emergency desysopping of the compromised account. In almost any other circumstance, complaints alleging the abuse of administrative privileges should be pursued through the dispute resolution process, and delivered, if necessary, to the Arbitration Committee -- blocking by fellow administrators will simply inflame the dispute. Moreover, it is implicit in both principles adopted in arbitration cases, and clauses in official policies, that there may be some bizarre situations to which the principles or policy provisions would not apply -- we need not expressly restrict the application of principles with "generally" unless exceptions are expected to arise with reasonable frequency. John254 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how does the policy and how would this principle relate to the infrequent-yet-occasional occurance of blocking administrators who are edit-warring on a protected page? Daniel (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing of a protected page is an action both administrative and editorial in character. In consideration of the editorial character of the activity, administrators edit warring on a protected page may be blocked on the same basis as users edit warring on any other page. However, administrators should not be blocked in consideration of the reduced tolerance for edit warring on protected pages, for editing that would not be blockable if the page weren't protected -- only the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue sanctions on that basis. John254 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the software not capable of allowing admins to be blocked? You would think it would be trivial to allow admins to be blocked, no? An account with it's account flagged is simply restricted from using any tools, except for the unblock function (in case some compromised admin account even managed to block 1000+ admin accounts rapid fire). That would leave plenty of time to desysop a rogue account in a nightmare situation, and would stop any problems, and would allow for blocking of admins for misuse of tools. Is there a reason this would be bad I'm not seeing from a technical level?

t/e 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Currently, it is technically possible to block administrators' accounts. While blocked, administrators may not perform deletions, page protections, or edit protected pages, though they can still block or unblock any account. The software does not suspend administrator's use of the blocking function, because blocking is not envisioned as a proper method to sanction administrators for the misuse of their privileges -- sanction of an adminstrator, by another administrator, for the former administrator's actions in their capacity as an administrator, has the obvious problem of sanctions being imposed by peers: admin B can block admin A for the abuse of his privileges, after which admin C can block admin B, believing the block of admin A to be unjustified. Then admin D can unblock admins A and B, after which admin E can block admin D for wheel warring, etc, resulting in a rapidly expanding block war. (The blocking of administrators for their editorial actions is permissible, because under such circumstances the administrators would be blocked in their capacity as editors, not administrators.) If we are really to permit community sanction for administrative actions (as explained above, there are good reasons why we shouldn't), then a higher authority, namely, a steward, would be needed to effectuate desysoppings. John254 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has that ever happened? Or anything remotely close? I'd like to see the details on that situation. I asked the question of where this change was discussed in the AN/I thread about

Love 16:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

If an administrator were blocked indefinitely whenever "a series of actions called his judgment into question", then

WP:AN/I had better judgment than to block Coren for the abuse of the blocking tool. The fact that we've never actually had an malignant block war, with the administrator who issued a block for alleged administrative misconduct being blocked himself, shouldn't be construed to indicate that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions is unnecessary, but rather that the principle it articulates has long had sufficient acceptance by the community as to avoid such massive disruption. Indeed, except when dealing with compromised accounts, I don't believe that one could find any situation in which blocking an administrator for alleged administrative misconduct has ever been accepted by the community. John254 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

That is simply not correct. The reason why an admin is allowed use of the block and unblock functions while blocked is to allow him or her to remove autoblocks which may prevent him/her to edit, as well as to prevent blocking all the sysops in a wiki. It has no bearing on whether blocking admins is socially inappropriate or not. See

cool stuff) 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The block on Arthur Rubin was patently ridiculous and should never have been issued. As I said at the time, there is one set of rules for the entire community, which apply to both users and users with admin status. That set of rules is set by various policies. However, the rules relating to use of admin functions specifically do not and should not be regulated by user management processes. If an admin is being disruptive / pointy / attacky to an extent that a user doing the same thing would be blocked, they should be blocked. This has happened before on many occasions. An example of this that involves admin capabilities but would require user sanction is edit warring on a fully-protected page in violation of

WP:EDITWAR. If an admin is misusing admin tools, then the community can reverse those actions and in an emergency bureaucrats and/or ArbCom can reach in to emergency desysop. Ironically, as far as I'm aware, a block is not preventative in this case anyway - the admin is blocked from editing the encyclopaedia or project pages but can still use their admin tools (as evidenced by the fact they are technically capable of unblocking themselves, although doing so is a cardinal sin), so a block serves no purpose, and may be misused in and of itself to sully the admin's reputation (see the Physchim arbitration case at the beginning of this year for example). Orderinchaos 08:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

has an extensive history of bot and script-assisted disruption, has been uncivil, and has improperly attempted to silence discussion concerning him.

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand

1)

Betacommand

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Generally speaking, I'm not fond of this wording. Not because I disagree with it, but because the way this is written means that an agreement with one is an agreement with all. Maybe it's the part of me that reads contracts for a living, but it makes me nervous. - Philippe | Talk 03:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Orderinchaos 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren

2) On 19:12, 15 March 2008, Coren improperly blocked Arthur Rubin, in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John254 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren says "blocking to prevent damage to the encyclopedia" - I see little evidence that this block would have prevented damage to the encyclopedia. Administrators do have wide latitude to block for this reason, but it is appropriate to question their judgment if they get this wrong and it turns out that there was no threat of damage to the encyclopedia, or at least nothing that couldn't have been handled by, for example, discussion. The point here is that Coren's judgment is being called into question - was he correct to judge that Arthur Rubin's actions were damaging, or could damage, the encyclopedia? If so, then his actions were justified. If not, then Coren's actions were not justified and some form of reprimand, or reminder to engage in discussion first, is needed. Coren also says: "lest administrators become hesitant to protect the encyclopedia over fears of retribution" - it is precisely this sort of blocking by Coren that will cause administrators to become more hesitant - I found myself thinking: "if Coren disagrees with one of my actions, will he block me first before discussing the matter with me?". As far as I'm aware, this is the first time Coren posted to Arthur Rubin's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur showed a lapse in judgment. It was the definition of a preventative block. Detailed justification was listed on the AN/I thread by me. Past that, to say it violated a section of the blocking policy that was added by you a month ago without discussion is inappropriate in itself. I don't know about other admins, but I don't read the blocking policy before every block I make to see if it's been unilaterally updated without any discussion or notification.

Love 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

If Coren actually believed that a single deletion indicated that Arthur Rubin posed such a serious danger to the encyclopedia as to require an immediate, indefinite block, then Coren should have instead contacted a steward to request the emergency desysopping of Arthur Rubin, since only desysopping could actually have prevented further administrative acts. Fortunately, as stewards are elected, in part, for having demonstrated good judgment, the request for emergency desysopping would have been refused. The question at issue here is not whether the block was actually justified (there is clearly a consensus that it wasn't), but rather whether the block was so bizarrely inappropriate as to warrant a finding and remedy in this case. John254 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pounding "indef block" like indef means something. It's not as if the block was intended to be a ban. It was set for an indefinite (uncertain) amount of time, and then immediately taken to AN/I for review, by Coren. While it seems obvious to you that admins should never be blocked for abusing their tools, and while the majority may agree with you, it is not a unanimous consensus. There are some of us who believe that if admins can be blocked for NPA and 3RR, among other things, it should be acceptable to also block them for abusing their admin tools, particularly when their actions leave the impression that further disruption may take place. In your summaries today, you've misrepresented the situation. It was not merely one instance of abuse, rather it was a series of events which included an instance of abuse. And there was an impression made that left some of us concerned that further abuse may be on the horizon. Once again, the definition of a preventative block.

Love 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Not even taking into account the fact that this snippet of policy was added recently under very little fanfare and even less scrutiny (making claims of "blatant violation" dubious at best), administrators have repeatedly been confirmed to have "wide latitude" in blocking to prevent damage to the encyclopedia by the Committee. In this specific instance, the blocking admin was acting within the spirit of that latitude, was explicit and clear in the reasons for the block, and participated in the ensuing discussion that did not lead to wheel warring (the putative problem this recent addition to the policy claims to address).

Good faith disagreement about the placing of a block, despite the sometimes overemotive reactions, should never be reason for sanction or even admonition lest administrators become hesitant to protect the encyclopedia over fears of retribution. — Coren ^(talk) 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, perhaps "good faith disagreement" concerning a single deletion should never serve as grounds for indefinitely blocking the administrator who performed the deletion, "lest administrators become hesitant to protect the encyclopedia over fears of retribution." The finding and remedy being discussed here seem downright mild in comparison to the severe sanction that Coren imposed against Arthur Rubin over a single administrative act. Furthermore, written policy is usually descriptive of the standards of conduct expected by the community, not prescriptive. Coren's block is not problematic merely because it violates the text of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions, but rather as a result of strong community sentiment that blocking administrators for the alleged abuse of administrative privileges is inappropriate, which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that such blocks are almost always reversed soon after they are placed. Indeed, except in cases of compromised accounts, I believe that it would prove impossible to find even one situation in which the placement of a block against an administrator as a sanction for allegedly inappropriate administrative actions has been regarded as acceptable by the community. John254 13:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, you're misrepresenting again. This was not based off of a single deletion. A detailed list of events was listed on ANI by me indicating a lapse in judgment past the single deletion. Other actions lead to the block as well.

The wording of your proposal is shamefully inappropriate. The fact that you keep stating the block was problematic because it violated the text you unilaterally added to the policy with zero discussion is even worse. Perhaps these blocks don't stick, but the fact that they happen, and are supported by a minority shows that not everyone is in agreement with you. Discussion should take place on it and a community consensus reached.

Love 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Betacommand as a prerequisite for the supposed misuse of administrative tools in a "content dispute", it nonetheless identified only one assertedly improper administrative action. John254 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agreed with proposition and with Carcharoth's comments above. In relation to the debate above - with all due respect to LaraLove, she was a highly involved party, radically opposing Betacommand's perceived foes and defending any action against them to an extent which led myself and others to seriously question her judgment. It's a case where the "battle lines" are long drawn and some correspondents see themselves firmly on one side and have concluded all on the other are "the enemy" - and that applies very much to both sides in this case. I support the proposition re Coren but not any implication that anything stronger than an "...is reminded..." type remedy should emerge from it - it strikes me as being a lapse of normally excellent judgement in a situation where tempers were raised. Orderinchaos 08:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-assisted enforcement of the non-free content criteria

3) BetacommandBot's fair use enforcement is highly objectionable even to employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per my evidence. John254 11:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's going a little far. Cary requested an opt-out due to his uploads, which he says were uploaded for someone else, or were uploaded from commons, and he does not want to/is not able to fix the images. If his problem was with the bot's policy enforcement, he'd have asked that the bot be fixed, not that he be ignored. Also, even if this does pass, the language is inflammatory, and it suggests that Cary's opinion is equal to that of the entire foundation. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who upload fair-use images must comply with the

WP:OFFICE article protection. John254 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Wow. Unbelievable. John, you blow me away. This is seriously jaw-dropping. You equate Cary Bass asking to be opted out of the Bot's messages because the uploads are not ones he can correct himself as him, as a representative of the Foundation, considering BCB's policy enforement to be "highly objectionable"? This is nothing more than deliberate disruption as it is blatantly obvious that you're not even close to accurately representing Cary's intentions. On the slim chance in Hell that I'm wrong, I'm requesting Cary clarify this himself.

Love 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Describing BetacommandBot as generating "ugly messages"[5], and characterizing it as a "malprogrammed bot"[6] while removing a large number of repetitive bot-generated notices hardly seems like high praise. John254 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the claim that Cary Bass cannot "correct [the images that he uploaded] himself"[7] is incorrect -- any user in good standing can correct deficiencies in image description pages. John254 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Cary Bass didn't merely request "to be opted out of the Bot's messages"[8], but rather to prevent BetacommandBot from taking any action whatsoever against images that he uploaded[9]. John254 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep linking to the same pages? Seriously no need to link to this section in this section. You're misrepresenting Cary, completely. And just because Cary refers to BCB as "malprogrammed" does not make it so. The images were not within policy and he uploaded them. Whether or not he uploaded them on behalf of someone else doesn't matter to the bot. It can't be programmed to know that. Your behavior in this case is becoming disruptive.

Love 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Doesn't seem to be a necessary or relevant contention. I would suggest that altering the wording to "highly controversial within the community, with a sizable percentage considering it objectionable" (my wording brain isn't great right now, but you get the meaning) with no reference to Foundation employees (we don't know whether he had his official hat on or off) would be better. Orderinchaos 08:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. I asked BetaCommand to remove me from notification because he could feel free to remove those images that I've uploaded on behalf of other people if he deemed them fair use. I objected to pointless notifications, not image removals! Cary Bass 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading John254's attempt to inform me of the provisions of

WP:BLP (anyone here ever heard of that policy?) and now I see him putting words in Cary's mouth - wrongly, as it turns out. Add that to his rather numerous premature arbitration requests and I'm beginning to wonder if arbitration is John's strong suit. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

No it's not. Acalamari 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this idea. Even if Cary had meant what John interpreted, when their not acting on behalf of the Foundation (

WP:OFFICE), their comments should not be given special weight over any other editors. MBisanz ^talk 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The issue appears to have been the user talk messages. Is there any indication that Cary objected to the images he uploaded being tagged? —Random832 (contribs) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was -- in a talk page section entitled "Betacommandbot exemption",

Betacommand to "program Betacommandbot to ignore anything I upload"[10]. Of course, he's since clarified here that he didn't actually want BetacommandBot to ignore his uploads completely, but merely to stop posting notices on his talk page[11]. I wrote this proposed finding of fact based on the information available at the time. John254 05:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one year.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Betacommand
banned for one year

1)

Betacommand

Disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per the "Bot and script assisted disruption" principle and the "Betacommand" finding. John254 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. No. Maxim_(talk) 22:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Editing restrictions are hardly an adequate remedy to control disruptive bot and script assisted operations that can cause widespread harm before they can be stopped. As

Betacommand has used bots and scripts to disrupt Wikipedia on many occasions, and over an extended period of time. John254 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Far too extreme. Something more along the lines of civility patrol/bot-action patrol would be more appropriate, in my view. If he violates that, then further, more drastic action could be taken. Bellwether ^B _C 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments to Kirill's proposal, I don't support this either. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way.

Love 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Way too extreme. VegaDark (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be overkill. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand does very valuable work. While he should make an effort to become more careful, and definitely should be more civil, banning him would not achieve anything. Acalamari 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's needed at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My God, no. Just because Betacommand can be uncivil, he shouldn't be banned outright from the site for one whole year. That's far too extreme a remedy. Valtoras (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. Way too extreme. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification from this sanction in the evidence presented. Per others, too extreme.

§ 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Did you honestly think this has a

chance in passing? -- Ned Scott 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

No, cause it uses a baseball bat to try and swat a fly. MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with MBisanz's baseball bat analogy. Parole is more suitable to this case. While I think a radical overhaul of his approach is needed, I can at least recognise he operates with good intentions and with the community's interests at heart, even though he frequently misunderstands what the community's interests actually are. There are trolls who get a better run than this. Orderinchaos 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One word: overkill. Kwsn-pub (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren reminded

2) Coren is ~~cautioned~~ reminded to avoid further violations of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per the "Blocking administrators for the alleged abuse of administrative privileges" principle and the "Coren" finding. John254 22:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom doesn't "caution" admins for one bad block. If it were so, if after one bad action you get a caution, after two you get admonished, and third strike you're out, we'd have no admins left that actually use their tools. Maxim_(talk) 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee aren't applied in the purely mechanical manner described above. Furthermore, absent evidence of widespread abuse, the "caution" is specific to the particular misconduct described -- i.e., an "admonishment" could only follow if Coren again blocked a fellow administrator for the alleged abuse of administrative privileges, but not if Coren placed a block which was alleged to be improper in some other respect. Moreover, violations of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions are quite easy to avoid -- one need not consider subjectivities such as whether a block is actually justified on the basis of the evidence available, or whether the blocking administrator was really engaged in a content dispute with editor who was blocked. John254 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have downgraded the "cautioned" language in this remedy to "reminded". John254 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I find it highly inappropriate that you're making such proposals considering the manner in which this became policy. The fact that most admins probably didn't even know about it and a grand total of you discussed it before adding it. No support whatsoever for such a ridiculous proposal as to remind an admin not to further violate a questionable and unannounced addition to policy.

Love 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Slightly loaded. A remedy of this kind is needed in my view, but given the singular nature of the action and the lack of a pattern, and the fact that it really does apply to everybody and not just Coren or any other named administrator, "Administrators are reminded of the provisions of the (link) blocking policy, in particular (part thereof).

As for "how this became policy", this is a case where the new policy has followed common sense, to rectify situations where the letter and spirit of the law may not have aligned. I support any such move to clarify, and it's incumbent upon those who disagree to raise objections as to why they feel such should not apply. Orderinchaos 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I am opposed, as a matter of principle, to any policy or guideline that so much as hints that it appropriate to give admins any sort of deference whatsoever above that afforded to editors at large; in fact, it should be quite the opposite. Behavior is often tolerated from editors in general (with a simple warning) because of a presumption of good faith and that they could, in fact, not know about the policy. Administrators get no such presumption, and should know better. — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators know better and should act like it" - I don't want to overdo the point here, but surely what you have said applies equally to your actions? Do you check the blocking policy before you carry out a block? Do you try and discuss things with a fellow administrator before blocking them? Do you discuss things with any editor before blocking them? Do you still think that you prevented damage to the encyclopedia with your block? People are using wording like "patently ridiculous" to refer to your block - doesn't that give you pause for thought? What about "we've never actually had an malignant block war, with the administrator who issued a block for alleged administrative misconduct being blocked himself" - do you realise that your actions brought us all a step closer to that sort of block war in future? What about what John254 said? "perhaps "good faith disagreement" concerning a single deletion should never serve as grounds for indefinitely blocking the administrator who performed the deletion, "lest administrators become hesitant to protect the encyclopedia over fears of retribution."" - I don't see you making any attempt to respond to that - it is a valid point that strikes to the heart of the logic behind your statements and actions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer some of your points in order (albeit this is probably the point where this should be taken to the talk page— I'll let the clerk for this case decide on that point): No, I have not discussed the block with the Andrew before I did it, but afterwards, because the aim was to prevent damage not to use blocking as a bludgeon or for threat value - which answers that question. Yes, having "patently ridiculous" used to describe my block does give me pause, albeit probably not for the reason you appear to hope it did. As for what John254 said, much of it is better left unanswered. But yes, what I said applies equally to my behavior. Indeed, if I should find myself in the middle of an edit war, use admin tools in it, and then threaten to further use those tools while still engaged in a dispute with the editor I most certainly hope you block me before I go through with it. — Coren ^(talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, that's exactly what you did: use admin tools in the middle of an edit war, and threaten to further use those tools. But I agree it shouldn't be a matter for this RfAr. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I was suggestion admins should be "deferred to". On the contrary, we have strong mechanisms for identifying and correcting admin misbehaviour with the tools. What I am advocating is quite simply equal treatment - if an admin does vandalism or 3RR or any of the other things users can get blocked for, they get blocked. If they don't, then don't block them. There isn't a Separate Admin Code with a list of blockable offences. Orderinchaos 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MBisanz

Proposed principles

Trust

1) Bot owners are granted a high level of community trust through the speed and unmonitored nature of their edits. Given the technical capabilities of Bots, many of their individual actions are all but unmonitorable by humans. Therefore, the community must be certain that bots will perform only those tasks that they are approved for, and only in the manner they are specified in the BRFA. Additionally, they are answerable to the community, for failures to maintain this trust or if the community's consensus regarding the performance of a given task changes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think you mean "imbued", not "imbibed", as the latter usually has conotations of drunkenness. I have so many witty one-liners that could be inserted here. I will resist, I will resist! Bellwether ^B _C 05:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant neither, as both as different meanings than I assumed they did. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Orderinchaos 08:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Repeated behavior

1) Betacommand has been repeatdly warned of his behavior; both his uncivility and his tendency to misuse his bot. While claims of harassment by others represent a mitigating factor, they do not indemnify him from answering for his actions. Additionally, his pattern of behavior indicates that it is not merely drive-by sniping that compels his actions, but rather his own approach to communication on-wiki that is the primary cause of the issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Orderinchaos 08:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detail required

2) For a task affecting tens of thousands of images uploaded over a period of several years, during which the rules of documentation changed considerably, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5 provides an insufficient level of detail with regard to the proposed task. Specifically, being open for five hours and having only a vague discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot_and_Fair_use that occurred after Bot approval is below the level of detail required for such a wide ranging task.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As a counter-example of 'best practice', look at the way discussion is proceeding at this bot request. Something similar should have happened for BetacommandBot. Carcharoth (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Five hours and one board thread after the fact is far too little discussion to call it consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could things have been done better? Sure, after you do something you can always look back and see what would have changed. However, this task needed to be done, and kicked the community in the butt to actually take responsibility for the images they uploaded. Lets say for a moment that this wasn't a bot, but a really efficient person: nothing one does in tagging in the way that BCB did violates any policy or guideline. Images tagged by BCB are more likely to be saved, because the bot leaves messages on the talk page of the article and the uploader. Most normal users don't do that. This was one of the best things that could have happened for Wikipedia (in regards to fair use). -- Ned Scott 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But now this Speedy Approve is being used to Speedy Approve the new NFCC Bot. Its a task that must be done and does help the project, but needs documentation as to the how on a technical basis (This bot will look for X, Y, and Z if lacking it will post template Q, it will notify users X, Y, and talk page Z) I could see a lot of conversation as to who should be notified, how should they be notified, where should complaints direct to, etc not impacting the eventual approval of this needed function. Also, this would serve a future principal for bot approvals that they should not be done so quickly or with so little community input. Particularity I'm dismayed that it was only explained on ANI after it was approved. If it needed explaining, it should have happened at BRFA. This doesn't invalidate the approval, it just says "Don't do this kind of thing again and expect it to go unquestioned" MBisanz ^talk 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The approval process is not for explaining the bot to the community. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, I'm saying that's not what BRFA is meant to be. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this bot request. Do you agree something similar would have helped for BetacommandBot. Do you think some bot operators would not have the patience to go through a process like that? Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

BAG position

1) Betacommand is removed from the

WP:BOT

policy, even if he disagrees with portions of it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since Kirill proposed doing this for ST47, it seems this should be on the table for Betacommand, but there are differences. I don't think there is any evidence that Betacommand has specifically done anything wrong as a BAG member (question: why did he stop being a member in the first place, was he removed?). My concerns are more along the "role model" line. If BAG members are meant to be role models for other bot operators (if BAG members say they aren't meant to be role models, that may prove my point that they should be), then clearly Betacommand is not, shall we say, an ideal role model. Note that both Betacommand and ST47 could freely comment on bot requests, like any other community members. The only effect would be to increase the workload for the remaining BAG members, though if they rubber-stamp requests where comments have been made by ST47 and Betacommand, that should be OK. In other words, the effect of removing ST47 and Betacommand from BAG would be purely symbolic, but sometimes that is needed to send a message. And I would hope that after a period of 6 months they could rejoin and be able to call themselves BAG members again. Remembering that it is the commenting on proposals, rather than membership of a group, that is the important thing. Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz has provided a fascinating link below.

Betacommand's proposal, where he says "Upon request I will publish my bot code or AWB settings for clarity" (notably different to his stance recently), and "I shall resume BAG when the objections have been solved and the rest of BAG agrees that it is appropriate", among other things. I will note that the composition of BAG is markedly different now to what it was then - please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

It was a while ago, but if I recall correctly, Betacommand's removal/resignation occured during his first arbcom case, possibly under pressure from arbcom. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Carcharoth. This plays into my evidence that Betacommand violated Bot policy and doesn't seem to fully understand it. If he can't follow the policy, how can he be expected to enforce the policy fairly or correctly? He was removed from BAG during his prior Arbcom as shown in this archive

Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group/Archive_5#BAG. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This wouldn't do anything. Other BAG members will consider BC's feedback just as they do now. The "power of BAG" isn't in a title. -- Ned Scott 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (1)

2a) Betacommand is prohibited from editing with BetacommandBot or any other semiautomated/automated tool for a period of one year. He may re-apply to

WP:BRFA

after one year if he wishes to continue editing with BetacommandBot. After one year he may re-apply or acquire through the proper channels, access to other semi-automated tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As stated above, overly extensive unless the Committee is prepared to arrange for the replacement of the bots, as they are invaluable to Wikipedia. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCB's only truly invaluable task (which is itself of less necessity now that all legacy images have been tagged) is image tagging, for which we already have a clone available to continue operating. Happy‑melon 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible idea. As I've said, Betacommand does invaluable work. A thankless job that others do not want to do.

Love 17:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in my head, is the proposal to rescind all approved BRFA's for BetacommandBot (and allow new BRFAs in one year)? - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its cleaning the slate for all BCB approvals and requiring new approval for them. Some of the current approvals seem vague and some are one-time use things that could be misinterpreted as being approval to do that one-time function in different settings without new BRFA. Also, it would get around the issue of how the community recalls a Bot's approval after its been approved. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually two remedies in one: firstly, BCB is (effectively) banned for one year, secondly, all BRFAs for BCB are voided and he must reapply. I think this would generate a more constructive discussion if you split this into two remedies. Happy‑melon 09:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never going to happen. -- Ned Scott 08:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will if the arbcom says it will. Bellwether ^B _C 12:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (2)

2b) All prior BRFA with regard to BetacommandBot are voided and may not form the basis for Speedy Approves of new bots. If he wishes to edit with BetacommandBot with a Bot flag, he must re-apply through the normal channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As stated above, overly extensive unless the Committee is prepared to arrange for the replacement of the bots, as they are invaluable to Wikipedia. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I misread.~~ I do believe we've gone through this before, but I suppose we can do the reapproval thing again for Betacommand, to clarify his current approvals. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in my head, is the proposal to rescind all approved BRFA's for BetacommandBot (and allow new BRFAs in one year)? - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its cleaning the slate for all BCB approvals and requiring new approval for them. Some of the current approvals seem vague and some are one-time use things that could be misinterpreted as being approval to do that one-time function in different settings without new BRFA. Also, it would get around the issue of how the community recalls a Bot's approval after its been approved. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually two remedies in one: firstly, BCB is (effectively) banned for one year, secondly, all BRFAs for BCB are voided and he must reapply. I think this would generate a more constructive discussion if you split this into two remedies. Happy‑melon 09:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So split. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original BAG approvals were not flawed, at least not enough for a blanket revoking of them. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that BC has been running unapproved tasks and claiming that they are just variants on an already-approved task. Wiping the slate clean is more a reminder that BCB will in future be more tightly regulated, and that tenuous claims of authorisation will not be accepted. Happy‑melon 13:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thats what I meant, what happy said. MBisanz ^talk 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit rate

3) Betacommand may not edit at a rate greater than 5 edits per minute, on any of his accounts. This implies that he may not use pre-processing scripts or other semi-automated tools that would be difficult for the community to monitor through Recent Changes. Additionally, similarly formed edits in quantities greater than 15 may not be marked Minor in the edit summary section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't like this. Don't say that you imply that he can't use semi-automated tools, say that he can't use semi-automated tools. That would include TW, AWB, and any scripts of his own creation. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Betacommand makes good edits. We shouldn't be limiting them to 5 or less per minute.

Love 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

If semi-automated/automated tools isn't clear. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With skill, someone with Tabbed browsing could exceed this rate unassisted - and the use of tools such as Twinkle, et al, could further increase that speed in the short term. Short of forcing BC to count "One Mississippi, Two Mississippi... " between edits, is there a way this could be further clarified? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a tough one. My point is that we can't look as what Beta is using to edit, so its difficult to tell from an outside view if he's just clicking quickly or using a custom script/preprocessor. Maybe something about none of his edits being marked minor? or some edit per minute rate combined with a time period? I'm open to other wordings. MBisanz ^talk 07:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if he fixes a common spelling error 16 times, he has to mark them all as major? That's just silly. Also, I would bet that most editors who watch RC (and would really only be looking for vandalism) simply ignore him, if he isn't already on the whitelist of whatever tool they use. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation

4) If Betacommand wishes for his Bot's functions to continue, he must turn over the code to another user who will run them on their own machine, subject to a new BRFA. This is not designed to infringe on his intellectual property rights, simply to remove physical control of the code when it is "live" on the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the Committee is prepared to do this, so be it, however he should not be forced to balance Wikipedia's best interests and his own IP rights. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand has already stated on numerous occasions that he's not releasing his code. So trying to push this will just be a detriment to the project. Not to mention, as others noted above, he needs to be able to debug, and if it's not in his control, he can't do this. Betacommand is best suited to execute his own scripts. It just needs to be assured he's carrying out approved tasks and no others.

Love 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward wording, and needs to be more specific in many places. Is this essentially a response to the (as yet unstated) principle that "BCB's image-tagging functions are invaluable to the project"? Happy‑melon 09:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm not a programmer or a lawyer, so I couldn't figure out how to properly word it. Everytime he's been blocked for a non-image tagging reason, the critical nature of image tagging usually pushes for an unblock. NFCC Bot is a step in the right direction, but its still a program on his machine in which he can edit the code at anytime and could run it without much notice himself. But I don't think we can legally say "Your code is no longer yours" so I'm trying to give him the option of giving it to someone else under whatever legal terms he wants to put on them. They would then compile/run the code on their own machine in whatever manner they saw fit. Feel free to propose a better version though. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is right.

It might not be legal for Betacommand to share his code with others if he has reused code and those permissions do not allow him to pass it on (IANAL).
All code cannot be compiled if he wishes to hide it from others (and decompiling is always possible). For example, PHP is interpreted not compiled. In other words, you cannot compile a PHP program, give it to someone and ask them to run it. I have to give them the source code and they can execute it. Or I could put it on a server and anyone can execute it perhaps with permissions so the code is hidden but this doesn't prevent Betacommand from running it.
If Betacommand wishes to debug his code, it's more difficult if someone else must run it.
It's his, for a lack of a better phrase. If I wrote an operating system that made editing Wikipedia easy then I would be angry if I had to release the code. We all use software that makes editing Wikipedia easy - such as Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox - while the latter's code is readily available, the former's isn't. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just wrong. Just as when I wrote a few articles back in January, they were no longer mine, so when BCBot chose to use his coding skills on the project, he relinquishes his "ownership" of the code. That he continually refuses to reveal this code is completely against the spirit of this project. Bellwether ^B _C 23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He chose to edit Wikipedia with something that helped him edit Wikipedia. I'm not convinced this means that he has to share this with the world or anyone else. Open source (or similar) is just one of many programming principles that has its own pros and cons over closed source or shared source. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless our rules state that bots have to run on GFDL code (why don't we say this?) this can't be done, I don't think, if Beta owns the code. IP rights > Wikipedia decisions. That said, the AC and WP can certainly restrict the right to run unvetted, unknown code, but I don't think thats the problem here. Out of curiosity, do we require GFDL compliant bot codes? If not, why not?

t/e 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

There's no reason why we can't enforce it but I think if we force licensing on bot writers we could end up with some unhappy people. Sharing is nice but not everyone wants to share. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not all Bot code should be GFDL is a whole other issue. I agree BC owns the code and that the Arbcom cannot force him to give it up. That is why I worded this as "If Betacommand wishes for his Bot's functions to continue" The choice is his. If he wants to retain 100% IP rights, then he doens't have to give the code to anyone. If he's willing to release it under specific terms to another user to run, then he can do that. While he would not be able to debug it, the point of this proposal is that if he wants NFCC tagging code to run, he should not have direct access to the editing controls. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be entirely honest: we want to see BCB's code because BC has built up an aura of mystery about this "extremely powerful" script that can make edits at such high speed. Do you want to see

Sinebot's code? Or MiszaBot's?? I honestly don't care what BCB's code looks like, or how it works. If users want to enforce open-source code as a matter of principle, then fair enough. But to push for GFDL code just to get hold of BCB is poor form. Happy‑melon 16:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I really don't think ArbCom has jurisdiction over what is basically, BC's personal property. Mr.Z-man 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct they don't have jurisdiction over it. And quite frankly I don't want to see the code, as I can't tell the difference between Bot's code and the workings of the human brain. But if someone wants to run something on the project, than I think the project has the right to set the ground rules. If the ground rule is that someone else has to run the code, then the person still has the choice to accept or reject the ground rule by simply not participating in that manner. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering what this achieves, having someone else run Betacommand's code. It makes it harder to stop and debug, for one thing, and Betacommand has more control over his scripts if, well, he is in control of the execution. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this pre-supposes the assertion that he hasn't been responsible in having control over a Bot account and automated scripts. So the specific goal of this would be to continue the function without him having control over the execution of the scripts. MBisanz ^talk 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: If Betacommand turns over command of a script which has a tagging rate similar to the one with non-free rationales task, then I would much prefer it if Betacommand was in full control because it's so quick. Not really applicable if the point regarding restricting his bot speed is an issue, I guess. He could still be arguably as disruptive without the bot account, too, of course. x42bn6 Talk Mess 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite BC's best efforts to build up an aura of mystery about his script, its speed is of absolutley no interest. The editing speed of scripts based on the pywikipedia framework (such as BCB) is controlled by one user-configurable variable in one config file. I could quite easily get MelonBot to edit at 40 epm just by changing that variable in my installation of pywikipedia. The reason I don't is that's it's prohibited by

WP:BOT. Happy‑melon 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

MickMacNee (I)

5)

WP:NPA

apply at all times.

Why is he being singled out again? This shouldn't be used as a forum to bypass RFC. If MMN's behavior warrants further actions, as has been proposed a couple times above for such situations, the dispute resolution process should be utilized.

Love 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't he been warned and reminded numerous times already? Mr.Z-man 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has, I was hoping that a warning from the committee carried more weight. Any other ideas? Maybe a 6 month no communication ban with Beta? or a 3 month Imagespace ban? I'm open to more creative ideas. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Lara, I seem to remember hearing that Arbcom considers the behavior of all parties involved in an Arbcom, but for some reason, I'm not seeing that wording in the Arb policy. Did this change recently? MBisanz ^talk 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on consensus

6) Allstarecho (talk · contribs) and Locke Cole (talk · contribs) are reminded that consensus is not achieved through straight voting. The location of a discussion, the probable biases of the participants, and the effect of the outcome must all be weighed in interpreting whether or not consensus exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

~~I'd be interested to know where you think I've stated that I believe this--especially given that it's the opposite of what I believe (see Riana's failed RfB for evidence of that).~~ Thanks for fixing it.Bellwether ^B _C 05:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a change to the name of this remedy would be in order, considering the name rules out all voting, but the text does not.

talk) 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Do'h! This is why I should not edit an arbcom after a 2 hour train ride. Corrected. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I object to this. Voting isn't the only way we achieve consensus, but it can be used to gauge consensus in an ongoing discussion. Further, pure voting is used heavily on Wikipedia (which often makes me wonder why people are so opposed to votes/polls), for example the ArbCom is elected via voting. Many policies have been enacted after polling. And so on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it to try to focus it more that a straight vote result of X/Y/Z isn't consensus, but that other factors influence matters. MBisanz ^talk 05:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be better if specific users were removed and it was worded as a principle. Mr.Z-man 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone's said it better before. Is there a past case where this was adopted, that I could copy? MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG reform

7) The Committee will address the issue of

WP:BOT

reform separate from this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as splitting the issue. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mention that the ArbCom cannot dictate policy might be appropriate. Happy‑melon 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purely out of possible interest regarding these types of proposals, this seems to be in part inspired by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, which the Committee passed 9-0 with one abstention back in early February. Daniel (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly really. Efforts are already underway, stalled by community apathy. I'll direct you to my proposal currently sitting on

inp23 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Didn't see that yet Martin. Daniel, yes it comes from that case and from the ethnic WorkingGroup idea. Some comments I've seen before this indicated an Arbcom could also address the BAG issues people have, and I'd rather the BAG issues and the Betacommand issues not be clouded together. Thats all. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of Martin's proposal before now, since I don't watchlist WP:BRFA, but I suggest it be allowed to run its course before intervention. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Valtoras

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Betacommand placed on civility parole

1) Betacommand is placed on civility parole for a period of one year. Should he make any edits that are deemed to be uncivil, he may be blocked for any period of time up to one week. After three blocks, the maximum block shall be extended to one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this if there is a change in wording that deems "judged" to mean a community consensus prior to blocking. Any edits considered to be uncivil should be discussed at AN/I and if the consensus is that it shows a blockable offense, then he should be blocked.

Love 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

"Deemed" is more often used, and it seems to both read better, and better satisfy Lara's concern. Thoughts?

§ 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Yes, that is better wording.

Love 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Bot restriction

2) BetacommmandBot is placed on parole. With the exception of bugs, if it is causing disruption, it may be blocked for a period of time up to one week. If the community's patience is exhausted with the bot, BetacommandBot looses its bot flag, and Betacommand will be restricted from operating a bot account.

Iff bugs and other such issues are not included, but only intentional issues, Support. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Much the same as the previous, if disruption is judged by the community and there is discussion before the block, I think this is appropriate. I do, however, agree that the "five such blocks" should be removed. It should be at the discretion of the community for each block.

Love 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I would like to see clarity on the term "disruption." Hypothetically, BCB might be doing an approved task (correctly, on point, no variance from said approved task) that has full community support. A bug might cause an error and BCB might be blocked to prevent further errors. Let's say it is minor and affects a very limited set of images (example of a bug that might fit this description). I am foreseeing people counting this as one of the five (perhaps that is your intent, perhaps not), when I wouldn't characterize that as disruption, myself. I just fear that the rationale behind the block is not very specific, but the number of blocks is. - AWeenieMan (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of bugs. I'll add principles, findings of fact, and proposd enforcement as soon as I can. Valtoras (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a step that should definitely be tried before any of the total bans of BCB are even considered. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but I'm not a huge fan of arbitrary numbers (1 week, 5 blocks). The "one week" bit could probably just be removed. Blocks are preventative and it is a bot: block it for whatever the admin feels is necessary, then let the block expire or unblock when it is assured that no disruption will happen again. Not sure about the "5 blocks" part, it seems awfully random and maybe a bit too lenient. If the bot is doing things that are actually disruptive (not explainable by a bug, and a non-approved task is not by definition automatically disruptive) that's a big problem. Would we give a regular user 5 chances, probably not, though it would depend on the magnitude of the disruption. Mr.Z-man 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I would hope something like this would apply to any bot account. Mr.Z-man 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed principles

Free and non-free content

1) The primary goal of Wikipedia is to create a

non-free content criteria

(also known as "fair use criteria").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, originally proposed on the workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Of course. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yup. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-compliant non-free content

2) Media that do not meet the requirements described by the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From Abu badali. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be recognised that rigidly following one small aspect of the policy can be to the detriment of ensuring comliance with the whole policy. It should be recognised that an extremely high percentage of images tagged as non-compliant by bcb are fixable, and efforts should be directed at assistance of the community to fix them, not the streamlining of the speedy deletion process. Deletion quite rightly is the end result if any editor is unable to change the image page to become compliant, but only in that case. It should be recognised that actions of third party editors in adding an image to an article, or renaming articles, can cause an image correctly uploaded and used by the original uploader, to become eligible for deletion. It should be recognised that the several modes of non-compliance are bot detectable, and classifiable. Ignoring this fact as a community in preference of streamlined bulk deletion is to the detriment of the encyclopoedia.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No argument. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of editors who specialize in image review

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From Abu badali. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While users such as myself should remain civil and refrain from flaming the newcomers and opposition, it should also be noted that the newcomers and opposition often fail to follow those same standards. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose should that be noted, if not to excuse a failure to meet the above standard? MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some mention of the amount of abuse received would be a good addition, otherwise agree.

Love 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I would mention the amount of abuse they can receive at times. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important principle. Endorse wholeheartedly. - Philippe | Talk 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shortly after I installed Twinkle and FURME, I realized I stepped into a whole new war, that makes inclusionist/deletionist AfD squabbles seem tame by comparison -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Happy‑melon 16:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

Works for me. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response of users whose images are questioned

4) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned is expected to address the matter promptly and civilly, recognizing that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons. Disagreeing with the concerns raised and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, also from Abu badali and per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support at this point in addition to NYB principle 3 above. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely.

Love 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I definitely have an issue with any idea that an image is the uploader's sole responsibility to fix. If the image source is not disputed, then theoreticaly anyone can fix it. Many uploaders are long gone, and many images can be invalidated by third party edits to the image page or articles. I strongly object to any developing notion that 'the uploader never turned up to fix it' can become a speedy deletion criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. It says that if you upload an image and you don't bring it to meet policy standards, that you should remain civil when those issues are brought to you. If they've left the project, it's guaranteed they won't react uncivil in response, so this wouldn't apply to them. Basically, just as Beta is expected to remain civil to those he deals with, those who deal with him should also remain civil. Where are you getting this speedy deletion criteria change? Did I miss something?

Love 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Support since it is to the point. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that anyone is required to recognise "that adhering to Wikipedia policy in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons". You go on to say that it's okay for people to disagree but only after you've already said that a particular opinion is required. People don't have to adopt any particular ethical position on this. They can have their own theories on the legal implications too, even if they're wrong. As long as they follow the policy, that's all fine. Arbcom should avoid suggesting otherwise. 87.254.66.167 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara's interpretation above qualifies as OR. There is no obligation for anyone to respond promptly to anything, considering Wikibreaks, etc. Without promptly, I concur. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community input

[In addition to, not in lieu of, any other remedy that might be proposed]

1) The community, particularly including users with experience in image compliance and tagging work, is urged to reexamine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were first developed. The review should attempt to the maximum extent possible 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;

(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 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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support. Wording-wise, I prefer "minimized" than "reduced" because it is used in conjunction with "maximized" and because it implicitly says that every bot and script has been disruptive at one point, which is false if the bot or script has never been run. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - have needed something like this as a clear statement for a long time IMO - there's a feeling that the rules is the rules and anyone in breach of them, even unintentionally, is somehow inferior in their contributions. Orderinchaos 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Philippe

Proposed principles

Role of bureaucrats

1) The Bot Approval Group serves an important role in determining the technical effectiveness and ramifications of a bot. However, the role of bureaucrats should always include the ability to determine whether a bot's purpose is within the policies of the community. A bureaucrat does not cede the decision-making ability (regarding whether or not to place a bot flag) solely to the BAG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In connection with bot approvals, what significance, if any, is accorded to a bureaucrat's declining to approve a flag? My understanding, at least as of some time in the past, was that if BAG approved a bot then the user could run the bot, and the only effect of a 'crat's declining a flag is that the bot's edits would not be labelled as bot edits in edit summaries (or omitted from recent changes for those who check "omit bot edits"). Is this still the case, in theory and/or practice? If so, the practical effect of a bureaucrat's declining to flag a bot would seem to be small. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that non-'crat approved bots could be blocked for disruption if they edited as a bot without the bot flag, couldn't they? Bellwether ^B _C 01:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am asking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were basically stating that no practical effect was the status quo (with your last sentence above), and I was pointing out that if 'crats take a larger role (especially based upon an arbcom ruling) then such bots would become rogue. Bellwether ^B _C 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is solely my opinion, and should not be construed as anything sane (and I'm posting in the wrong section) but if I approved a bot, and a crat came along and told me they wouldn't flag it, I'd defer to the crat. Even if policy doesn't state that they have a veto or whatever, I think most of us would respect their judgment. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, while we may have identified an issue for policy discussion in an appropriate forum (and I have no problem with using arbitration cases to identify issues that need policy discussion, as opposed to asking the arbitrators to make policy themselves), I don't presently see how any bureaucrat action or inaction regarding a bot flag is directly relevant to this case. If I am missing something, please clarify. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on comments by WJBscribe. - Philippe | Talk 01:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad: My understanding is that bots without the flag have edit rate throttled and show up in the ~~watchlists~~ list of recent changes as well... - Philippe | Talk 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this is based on my comments, as I don't think this principle represents the policy as far as bot approvals go. Bureaucrats have the technical ability to assign flags, something previously done by stewards. Bots can in some circumstances run unflagged, when there is no bureaucrat input at all. Also, once a bot is flagged, subsequent tasks (which can be very different from the original one) are approved by BAG and require no bureaucrat action. In my opinion the community has not given bureaucrats "oversight" of bot approvals, bureaucrats merely have the technical ability to flag bots where approval has been given by BAG. If BAG indicates to a bureaucrat that a bot should have a flag, the bureaucrat discretion to refuse a flag is extremely limited and does not IMO extend to an independent analysis of the consensus for a bot to have a flag. Given there seems to be confusion in this area, I will make a more lengthy post to /Evidence. WjBscribe 02:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified that this is based upon my opposition to comments by WJBscribe at [12]. That was terribly poor wording on my part. To NYB, I think it's related because it deals with the NFCC bot, which is directly related to the BAG actions on this arb case. I feel very strongly that bureaucrats are not simply there to comply with BAG's recommendation, but to judge whether it was in process (as with RfA) and appropriate. - Philippe | Talk 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I draw your attention to my lengthier post at /Evidence. If the community wishes bureaucrats to take a more prominent role in the bot approval process, that is something we can take on, but BAG has been created by the community to oversee bot approvals whereas bureaucrats have no such mandate. I do not think that bureaucrats can simply presume to the role you suggest - the bureaucrat role in the bot approvals process has always been much more limited than our role in RfA/RfB or renames. WjBscribe 02:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Philippe that Crats should have a more substantive role in Bot flagging, but I doubt the Arbcom will create or alter policy unless its directly on point in the case (for exmaple if the BAG were approving Bots FOR vandalism and the Crats were just flagging per procedure). MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well

WP:IAR exists for a reason - I wouldn't flag a bot designed to vandalise :-) ... WjBscribe 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

One thing to consider is that bureaucrats' flagging of each bot is a one time thing; they play no role in approval of successive tasks, once the bot already has a flag.

✽ 03:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This proposal seems to misunderstand the current state of affairs. Happy‑melon 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how... there appears to be a great deal of confusion about the role of 'crats in flagging bots. Why not codify it? - Philippe | Talk 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause this is Arbcom. They enforce policy, they don't create or codify it. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has a dangerous slippery slope component attached to it. While it is indeed common sense that a bureaucrat has the discretion to not flag a bot with a clear intent to violate Wikipedia policy, the same cannot be said for bots which may or may not have hidden functions within them. Bureaucrats have the task of determining consensus, which requires a different skill set than vetting code security; while in some cases the current bureaucrats possess both, it is not always the case. I'm concerned that if a bot breaks policy, either maliciously or inadvertently, the bureaucrat will be held liable for the damage ("You flagged it, you clean it!"); the current wording seems to indicate that such would be a possible outcome (per "the role of bureaucrats should always include the ability to determine whether a bot's purpose is within the policies of the community"). Such would be a significant expansion of the role of bureaucrat that requires community discussion and oversight.

cool stuff) 04:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Template

5) {text of Proposed principle}

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Proposals by Bellwether ^B _C

Proposed principles

Consensus and Community

1) The community of this project can not function without collegiality and consensus-based decision-making.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Leads to my proposed remedy below. Bellwether ^B _C 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do agree, but the principle is a bit wishy-washy in my opinion, and sweeps quite a large brush..

inp23 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Proposed findings of fact

Wide consensus is not being achieved at BRfA

1) The process of consensus-based decision making is not working at the Bots Request for Approval page.

Proposed. This is not just in reference to the problems at the NFCCBot BRFA, but generally around the issues raised by BAG-members in this forum. It leads to my proposed remedy below. Bellwether ^B _C 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, too broad. Consensus based decision making does work from time to time, but not uniformly enough. In fact, consensus based decision makingwithin in BAG is strong - it's just consensus from the broader community which is more difficult to achieve.

inp23 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

We don't need, and should not have, a big community vote on everything that needs a consensus, nor does every decision need a consensus. Mr.Z-man 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

BRfA

1) Effective immediately, Bot Requests for Approval will become a subsection of RfA, similar to RfB procedure. BAG still presides over the process, but bureacrats determine final consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't normally make policy like this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAG can decide to change its approval process at will, by consensus. The community can discuss alternatives as well. What seems important is that whatever is done, bots will be evaluated (and if necessary, field trialled, code checked and operator-interrogated) by specialists at BAG, at a technical level and for technical issues, and that the same debate or more likely a separate parallel debate covers its practical operation as a wiki user (its posts, actions, methods) so the community can consider if it likes these. Both are important aspects of a bot. Perhaps two parallel discussions should be taking place, and bots must gain BAG approval and communal approval, to be operated? My $0.02 of thought on this one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This would immediately alleviate the problem of apathy, as the RfA page is very high profile. A lower standard could be set for approval of bots (perhaps a super-majority of 60% would carry the day), and the BAG would still remain the most important "cog in the wheel", especially in a technical sense. Bellwether ^B _C 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. BRFA is open to interested community members. Turning it into a BRFA type process would be a complete waste of effort for anyone getting a bot approved. Experience and understanding of policy and programming are necessary at BRFA. An opinion, regardless of its veracity, is all that is needed to vote on an RfA. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47)

More light on the BRFA process is not a bad thing. And educating the community about the role and functions of bots within the community is not a bad thing either. This proposal accomplishes both. Bellwether ^B _C 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Sam: how exactly is this making new policy? It's simply moving the current BRfA page to a subsection of the current RfA page, in a way similar to RfBs. There would be no difference than the current situation, except that more light would be shed on the process, and more of the community would become involved. No new policy creation here, Sam. Bellwether ^B _C 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ignorance is not an excuse. If community members are unwilling or too apathetic to participate in a discussion process which has been created for their benefit, then there is little the bot community can do to make the process more interesting. I think you might be unfamiliar with the number of truly boring BRFAs that are processed on a regular basis. What makes you think that moving them to RfA will suddenly make them interesting to non-programmers amongst the community? And what happens if a boring but necessary and uncontroversial bot 'fails' its BRFA not because of any significant opposition, but because of complete apathy from the community? I am all in favour of more community participation in potentially controversial BRFAs, but nothing we can do will make the technical details of a program which does tasks which are by their very nature ones that humans don't want to do themselves, more interesting to those outside the bot-owning community. Happy‑melon 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the BAG comes in, as they--in conjuction with the closing 'crat--would discount frivolous opposes. A major concern of a member (I can't remember which one) of the BAG in this arbcom was the community's apathy toward BRfA. This proposal solves that problem. Bellwether ^B _C 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am not sure this proposal is possible, under the remit of the Arbitration Policy: it seems rather like the authoring of new guidelines to me. Granted, it is technically changing the operations of the project, but even that is probably best left to the Community to handle. In principle, and pending a correction on whether this is fundamentally possible as an action from the ArbCom, I object to this proposal.

§ 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

It's not outside the remit of this arbcom to solve problems the community has been able to handle themselves. Bellwether ^B _C 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for a few reasons:

ArbCom doesn't make policy. This is, however you look at it a policy change and will only cause a massive headache...
Movements are already underway to improve community participation, more to come hopefully, community input appreciated on these at
WT:BRFA
Most likely to be against the community's wishes.
inp23 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm still waiting for someone -- anyone, really -- to explain how exactly this is making new "policy." It's simply moving an important approval page from obscurity into the light. Nothing else will change per the above, unless there's consensus to make further changes. Bellwether ^B _C 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not important. This sort of thing is better done outside arbitration. Make a proposal and advertise it, and if the community like it, it will happen. Probably better to engage with the current reform going on within BAG though. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if this proposed remedy would solve a core problem (apathy at bot approvals), and I think it would, wouldn't it be best if the proposal had the force of an arbcom ruling behind it? I mean, a proposal from myself--not a member of the BAG, not an admin, not anything really--would carry zero weight in the other forums you mention. Bellwether ^B _C 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so, then there are problems that even the Almighty ArbCom can't fix.
inp23 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Are you talking about my assertion that small "voice" like mine would simply be ignored elsewhere? If so, simply check out the BRfA for the NFCCBot for an example of that. Not only ignored, but actively silenced by an administrator's tools. Bellwether ^B _C 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. And this alleged misuse of tools seems to be part of what this case is about, and will determine whether what happened was wrong. I'm confident that you'll be given the chance to air your thoughts on that BRFA.
inp23 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

ST47 reminded

2) ST47 is reminded that page protection and other administrative tools are not to be used in dispute with other editors.

I wish someone would simply

place this on the decision page, as it's certainly in the best interests of the project, but I don't have the courage to challenge the bosses. Bellwether ^B _C 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

This should be proposed on the workshop, where all proposals and suggestions for the arbitrators for use in the final decision are made. I will do so shortly unless you provide me with a very good reason not to. You are certainly strongly advised that adding this to the proposed decision page will be reverted; I am glad your foresight realised as much. Daniel (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I don't have that kind of courage. IAR would seem to be created for such things, but perhaps not. I wouldn't test the limits of it in such a fashion anyway. I'm also not incredibly familiar with the whole Arbcom procedural stuff, so proposing this at the workshop is fine, if you think that's appropriate. I put it here because this seemed to be where at least two of the arbs were most active. Bellwether ^B _C 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the workshop page. Daniel (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This seems reasonable and appropriate given the current unresolved nature of the incident (with an appropriate finding of fact of course). I can't imagine how anyone would imagine protecting a discussion page would somehow benefit the project in any way. Discussion should never be discouraged (its a lack of discussion that often leads to revert wars, and other unproductive activity). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that two of our more active arbitrators (Flo and Brad) have seemed to simply write this off as even a possibility when it was brought up at the proposed decision page. Then our clerk, Daniel, moved this from the more active PD talk to here, which has been long-dead, leaving only a cross-reference. This proposal will most likely die a quick and painless death, and ST47's actions will be swept under the rug because (per Flo) they'll be forgotten soon anyway. Bellwether ^B _C 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied actual text back to PD page, which is far more active than this page.

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ned Scott

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Opt-out issue

1) Let the community handle the opt-out process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There isn't even enough context in the proposal for me to begin to understand what you're talking about. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a case proposal, but a proposal for the case itself (as in, this wouldn't be placed on the case page or voted on). I'm suggesting that issues relating to the opt-out process was being dealt with on other pages, thus there really isn't a need to address it in this case. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I had faith that something would have been worked out in regards to opting out of messages had this case not been accepted. I know some people were very frustrated with the process, but logically thinking, there's no reason for BCB to refuse an idea that 1) would work out well technically and 2) benefit both him and those wanting to opt-out. -- Ned Scott 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Betacommand

Proposed principles

Valued contributor

1) Betacommand is a valued contributor, who has done a lot of good for wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Per my principle of equality, why should this even be stated as a fact let alone a principle? What is to be gained from such a recognition if it is not by definition to devalue all other constructive contributors efforts? What is being valued here, the sheer scale of the edits or the technical mastery involved in the coding? (I refer again to the blunt tool nature of the nfcc10c bot and the complete closed mind of bc to reasonable suggestions for improvement from the community that has to deal with the consequences of massive bot runs). I also compare the recent AN discussion about David Shankbone and the similarly worded agreements from the types of editor that routinely and over-eagerly defend betacommand whatever the issue. Wikipedia is not the place to have your ego massaged, nor the place to demonstrate or practice your coding skills, it is a place to provide and improve content, as a volunteer who expects no recognition or reward. MickMacNee (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Invaluable contributions.

Love 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Just if you could please put a bit of definition on this belief of bcb being invaluable? What is asserted would actually happen if bcb stopped editing tomorrow? As proposed in one of my findings, bdb for nfcc10c is not the embodiment of the foundation resolution, in the best case scenario that all images on wp were 100% in compliance as assessed by the bcb check, it will not offer any meaningful legal protection as would be seen from a cursory but proper examination of the working of of the bot, compared to the policy. Additionaly, bot enforcement of the policy is not legaly required, it is the policy that satisfies the legal protection of wp. A case could even be made that over-reliance and over advocation of the bot opens up a very dangerous loop hole, considering the nature of the policy. Additionaly, many of bcb's other functions are replicated elsewhere, so what is the impending catastrophe here, as would be implied by the arbcom stating the fact that bcb is invaluable (as opposed to considered very useful in some editors POV, and noting his actual term is 'valued contributor'). Would there be 2 arbcomm cases and numerous AN/I threads about bcb if this were actually were a truism? MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~You lost me at POV.~~ Actually, no. This is another case of you responding to something other than what was said. This isn't about his bot. This is about him. And his contributions are extremely beneficial to the project. Despite your belief, this is something that is widely agreed upon, which is shown here.

Love 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No time to comment on the other stuff, but this is an important point to make. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand is an immensely valuable contributor who cares deeply about the encyclopedia. Acalamari 17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Will ^(talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a finding of fact, not a principle. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, actually. He's also done some harm to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as David said, this probably should be a finding of fact. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case principles are statements of policy. Unless we want to make it policy that Betacommand is a valuable user, then this should be a finding of fact.

cool stuff) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

FoF rather than principle, but undeniably true. Happy‑melon 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If proposed for β, it should be proposed for all the other participants (except any for which it is untrue, of course). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as it should apply to all good faith contributors, which is almost everybody editing on this case on both sides. Orderinchaos 06:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

2) Personal attacks are not acceptable and need to be dealt with quickly and harshly as they pose a risk to the encyclopedia by driving valued editors away.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur with the concept, wording of principle might need to be edited. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for a few reasons. "Dealt with" could mean many things. In many cases someone will say something that is a personal attack, but giving them a warning right away could also escalate the situation. No personal attacks and civility are very important things, but once they've already happen, our priority is to avoid it happening again. This suggests our priority is punishment. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The principle - that personal attacks are unacceptable - is sound, but the wording is unnecessarily severe. Happy‑melon 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Acalamari 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

3) Harassment is not acceptable and should be dealt with quickly and harshly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur with the concept, wording of principle might need to be edited. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment isn't acceptable, but quickly and harshly might be the wrong words here. Maybe firmly and consistently? or in-line with policy? MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not feeling it, for the same reasons I stated above. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, principle is sound, but needs rewording. Happy‑melon 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abused editors

4) Those users who are under constant personal attacks and or harassment are reminded to follow

WP:NPA

, but given long term abuse, not all users can remain calm under such conditions. It is not an excuse for them to ignore CIVIL and NPA, but it should be taken under consideration as mitigating circumstances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

No. Owners of prolific bots especially have a need to remain civil and avoid personal attacks at all times, no matter if someone calls them a name. Bellwether ^B _C 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Acalamari below, this should be considered a mitigating factor in Betacommand's case. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support a million times. We're not sponges, we're human beings. Will ^(talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects bot owners to be "sponges." They're just expected to not attack those who raise legitimate issues, simply because some people say "you're a @$!$!%@#^" to them. Bellwether ^B _C 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A valid defence in a first arbcom regarding civility, but a second one? If you put yourself up by your own actions as a sitting duck for community attention, you should be able to handle it over and above that of a normal editor, unless the implication by this is that wikipedia, i.e all admins, have done nothing to protect betacommand from proven personal attacks and not just from what his perception of an attack is. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Love 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with this: if certain users are always under stress by being constantly harassed and personal attacks continually being made against them, it's understandable that they may react in a tough manner sometimes (who wouldn't?). However, Betacommand is entirely correct that the harassment/personal attacks are not excuses to ignore CIVIL and NPA, and I am glad that Betacommand is addressing concerns raised in this case. Acalamari 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. Like BC said, it doesn't excuse the incivility, but it should be taken into consideration. Being understanding like this will go a long way to resolving disputes and deescalating situations. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Remaining civil in the face of attack warrants increased praise, but there can be no excuse for NPA or CIVIL violations. Mediation, Dispute Resolution, or just taking a step back (wikibreak etc) are all valid and effective solutions. Fighting fire with fire is never appropriate in this context. Happy‑melon 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - I accept that there are challenges in dealing with incivility and such, but many of us have to deal with the same things in our subject specialisations on mainspace and do so without exploding or reacting. Orderinchaos 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand has been harassed

1) Users have knowingly attempted to disrupt discussion, and follow Betacommand/ Non-free content discussions making non-relevant and/or knowingly wrong and/or not bothering to check the validity of there statements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Beta gets more than anyone with image-tagging or notification bots, true. Will ^(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until a list is provided of diffs where there's actual harassment (read: not the "you're a @##$@!$%" kind) from those raising concerns, I don't concur with this. Bellwether ^B _C 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, obviously, for anyone who frequents

User talk:BetacommandBot. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Actually, no. I see quite a few obvious trolls that say, basically, "you're a !@$#%$", but nothing systemic from those who raise legitimate questions about the functions of BC's bot and BC himself. Certainly nothing to justify anything like the incivility I've seen from BC. Bellwether ^B _C 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily vague, seems to group unrelated causes of discontentment. Lumps in purposely lying with being merely mistaken/'un-informed'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.

Love 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Not convinced that the evidence supports this. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support the principle but not the wording, which needs changing.~~ Actually, strike that. As Stifle says, the evidence doesn't support it. There have been one or two cases where Betacommand may have felt that pages like Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c were harassment. Inappropriate, perhaps, but I don't feel it's really harassment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would like to see evidence that β has been harrassed other than by "you're a censored" posts. I haven't seen it or seen β claim it before now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin
this edit summary and the users other edits
yet another excerpt from a user's conribs

β^_command 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

That qualifies as "harassment"? Really? Bellwether ^B _C 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one. Probably true to some extent. Although I'm not sure we can read into a user's comments that they made knowingly wrong statements or didn't check their sources or weren't relevant. MBisanz ^talk 06:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if I made a userbox for my page that said "This user thinks BellwetherBC is ruining Wikipedia", and left edit summaries stating "Bellwether is retarded and the worst thing to happen to WP" or whatever, you'd take that as harassment.

Love 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I would point out that under the definition of

Wikipedia:Harass#Dealing_with_harassment? MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I agree with this. I remember disruption such as this. Let's not forget this or this either. Finally, there's this comment and this mini-rant. I'm surprised that the person who wrote what was in the last diff I provided wasn't blocked for those comments. Acalamari 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admin, why did you not act if you remember these incidents? I again draw attention to the disconnect between the title 'harassment' supported by these diffs, and the actual text of the proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I got to see these incidents, it was too late for anything to be done (blocks are preventative, not punitive). If I had issued blocks to those users several days after those had happened, that would be abuse. Gnfgb2 was blocked later as a sockpuppet, but that's not the issue here. Acalamari 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Too vague. Might support a more demarcated finding.

cool stuff) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

2) most tasks that BetacommandBot does are non-controversial and very helpful (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size)

BetacommandBot's un-approved tasks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

They already should be by definition in the bot policy. MickMacNee (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True.

Love 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Acalamari 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be the case, but there really isn't any evidence, as β doesn't keep records of what tasks the bot is doing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we should be clear that this doesn't mean that those tasks should continue when objections are made later on (though I assume this is already the case. For example, the red-category issue in userspace). -- Ned Scott 06:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This feels overly broad. I know BC has done many one off tasks that aren't controversial (or like with Birds, noticed by anyone other than the requestor). But I'm just uncomfortable with the Arbcom formally sanctioning (approving of) the idea that un-approved bot task performance can be helpful. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague I think. This proposed finding of fact, because it is qualified, does not exclude a further finding to the effect that some of the tasks undertaken using the BetacommandBot account were both controversial and unhelpful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "most", but I believe that a portion of the tasks are very controversial. I agree with the helpful part, most of the time, though. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot error handling

3) Errors in BetacommandBot are quickly identified and fixed, without major issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Support. Bugs are fixed quickly. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a basic characteristic of any bot operator, let alone one that can make 10,000 tag runs in one day. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Partially concur. They're quickly identified, sure, but sometimes you choose not to fix them. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know of any of these. the only issue I know of is Dab pages.

β^_command 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Do you think you could actually provide a bug subpage? You get a lot of good feedback (along with the negative stuff) on your talk page, and some of the feedback does risk getting lost in the noise. Or it did when you did large tagging runs. Carcharoth (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See point 17, and this

β^_command 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agreed. Betacommand fixes bugs fairly quickly, such as underscores instead of spaces. Evidence doesn't support this so I'll go and see if I can dig it up. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What point 17? I hate using off-wiki bug report sites (eg. bugzilla). Is there no way of leaving notes somewhere on-wiki for others to transfer over? Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 17 of the purple box on

User talk:BetacommandBot. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I was looking at the 10-point list on

User talk:Betacommand... (isn't that a bit contradictory - to have two different boxes for the same purposes?) Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

From my own experiences this is very much true. I doubt the additional evidence would be necessary, but if anyone thinks it would help, I would be glad to write up a small section on the evidence page. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially concur. "Bugs" (the bot not doing what β thinks it was programmed to) are fixed. Conceptual errors (β not realizing what that bot does is not what is approved) are not fixed, even if clear to everyone else, until after the bot is blocked. There's still one instance left of project-tagging by one of his bots which performed as intended at the request of an established editor, but was considered by consensus to be ill-advised. He was not willing to take responsiblity for the error. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this opinion. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in totality with Arthur Rubin's comments immediately above. Orderinchaos 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's good work

4) Betacommand does a lot of valuable, if thankless work for wikipedia, including

User:RFC bot

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Raises the issues of a proper community assesment of 'value'. Also, it should be noted that wikipedia is voluntary, every editor works on the basic assumption their efforts are not due 'thanks'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt.

Love 18:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Acalamari 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, though I'm uncomfortable with "thankless". Like MickMacNee says, one does not expect to be thanked. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something that focuses on the detailed and repetitive nature of coding instead of the thankless nature of policy enforcement? Otherwise, yes MBisanz ^talk 06:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as #Valued contributor. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but I hesitate at the "if thankless" section, per Mick; prefer

§ 18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Agree. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Violations of NPA

1) Violation of NPA should be dealt with quickly and harshly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This isn't a remedy, it's a principle. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major violations of CIVIL

2) major violations of CIVIL need to be handled quickly and harshly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.

β^_command 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

This isn't a remedy, it's a principle. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MickMacNee

Proposed principles

Basic equality

1) All editors on Wikipedia are equal. Inferences in discussion to heirarchies, leaders, experience, value, implied authority etc, when used as a replacement for discussion, or as an excuse for policy violation, are in direct opposition to the five pillars, and to the policy wp:bite. Use of such terminology pre-empts discussion by inferring heirarchies or cabals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not sure what kind of a point this makes. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed totally with the sentiment, but this is not the makings of an ArbCom resolution. Orderinchaos 06:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring new users to historical decisions

2) Wikipedia gains new contributors everyday. Casual reference by seasoned editors, particularly administrators or high profile bot operators, bithely to previous complex judgments or heated long running issues, in replacement of providing reasonable and sensible individual replies to new editors, along the lines of 'search the (20 page) archive' or 'this has been discussed to death', are unhelpful, and should be discouraged at all times. Similarly, template replies to repeat queries should also be discouraged. In cases where repeat queries arise, approaches such as providing an FAQ page are considered a reasonable alternative to the above replies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with others that measures have been taken to take the pressure of such repetitive questions off of Beta. If users fail to read the headers, archives or utilize the help desk and instead choose to go hassle the bot operator, it should not fall on Beta to stop and answer these same questions over and over again in detail.

Love 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Betacommand has 22 separate archive pages, with well over an average of 150 topics per page. An example of the information in his talk page header: All images must comply with policy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again in this reply is the implicit impression that all the pressure is on betacommand, (as if it's a breeze being on the other side trying to figure out how to fix your tagged image), and anyone who posts to his talk page are intentionally 'hassling' him. MickMacNee (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that is why ever single notice BCBot places has a link to

β^_command 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

As I said directly below, the FURG is a guideline for the policy only, to be understood from a perspective of a human assessing an image, and cannot be considered a useful explanation of the methods and causes of recieving a bcb bot automated tag, for which the perception can be radically different. MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to rewrite the notices BCBot leaves, but they could not be more clear, to the point, or polite. Anyone who has a genuine inability to comprehend such detailed and linked text and has a continued need to understand what's happening can go to the image help desk and ask, as they are instructed to, and those of us who gleefully volunteer there will gladly answer those questions. Also, you don't need to keep hammering established points to me. I already know them all.

Love 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The wording of the notices has come up time and again, even this week. Explain to me where on the tag and in the furg it explains for example that a bot notice may have been placed on a previously compliant image because a fair use claimed article had been transformed into a db page. It doesn't, anywhere. Or rather, it appears it does, when viewed from the perspective of a bot programmer or someone who answers these queries constantly. MickMacNee (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted for you a few times that these notices are not Betacommand's wording. They are community-written templates. If you or others have issues with the wording,

Love 15:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

No. It's one thing if the user asks for additional clarification and doesn't get a response, but there's nothing wrong (for most situations) with referring to the past, or using standard responses to common questions. If someone says "see archive 20" and I go "I still don't understand", we should hope they would then give a more personal response. We don't have to require this right away, because it will make for a lot more work than is needed. While a certain level of good communication is expected on Wikipedia, we have to remember that not all editors are very good at expressing themselves. We can't force people to be able to explain things well, or to be able to write individual responses to every question they receive (they are volunteers, giving us their time, after all). We do, however, ask that they do the best they can with the time they use on Wikipedia, and with the abilities they have. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC and the bot both have giant templates on their talk pages and we set up an entire new help desk for image copyright issues as well as

WP:FURG. There isn't much more that could be done. If people choose not to read these things or use resources like the help desk, that's only their own fault. Mr.Z-man 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Many people have disagreed, and you know this. The message boards are helpful given a manageable workload, not the huge runs caused by bcb. And in my personal experience of the boards, asking anything over and above the most basic repeated queries results in none or innacurate advice. WP:FURG is just that, a guideline about the policy, and not a resource specifically geared to explaining the bots operation, and myriad potential causes of non-compliance it treats in the same way. You believe the huge templates on his talk page are helpfull, again others have disagreed, many times. The repeated queries and complaints at his talk page should illustrate that the issue is not one of people willfully ignoring the current links or advice, but a perfect illustration that the current measures are inadequate. No one can in good conscience can defend referring someone to the massive archive of betacommandbot talk pages to answer a common query. Even established admins like LaraLove who continually provide this sort of defence of apparent willful ignorance cannot even accurately recall themselves in discussions whether they are defending the 17 point template on the bot page, or the 10 point one on bc's page, even when corrected. I believe it is symptomatic of a total lack of ability to view the learning process from a newcomer's point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if the big templates and the help desk are inadequate, why would an FAQ page be better, and why would people read that as opposed to reading the template or asking on the help desk? And if people are reapeatedly asking the same question, and you would end up giving the same answer, why is a template bad? If different people repeatedly ask me the same question and the answer will never change, I can either type the same answer every time, or I can save some time, type it once, and use it as a template. Yes, FURG is a guideline about the policy, but the point is to explain fair use rationales using simpler language than

WP:NFCC. Mr.Z-man 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Given the nature of a wiki, you have to question the judgement of someone who is happy to continually post the same answer to a question on a talk page as opposed to taking a different approach. It also incorrectly assumes every question can have exactly the same answer. The templates on the bot pages are nowhere near the style of an FAQ page, again, this has been said by many many people, except the most ardent defenders of bc. It is just common sense that simply requiring a new user to actively engage in asking a question (and by implication understand to some degree the subject they are asking about, and require extreme patience from the mb patrollers whilst users are corrected), or to search archives, is a worse approach than providing good quality information a user can passively read at their leisure, obtainable at their first point of call. This practice is mirrored all around cyberspace. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say every question has the same answer, rather, barring any changes to policy or other external issues, identical questions will have identical answers. Mr.Z-man 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, it would be best if you would stick to the facts of the case. Inaccurately recalling a discussion between you and I where I was confused about which talk page you were referring—and, IIRC, I acknowledged that misunderstanding despite what you've claimed here—it's not relevant to the case. How about posting some diffs evidencing where the help desk is insufficient.

Love 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

We can't answer every individual query individually, and referring people to an FAQ, a template, or a repository where they can see their answer is as good as typing a custom answer, and a sight faster. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this comment is in defence of bc (I'm not entirely sure actually given the wording), but a FAQ suggestion was part of the 'attack page' I created and was met with the usual, the templates on bc and bcb talk pages, if meant as a place where people can see the answer to their question are as clear a violation of WP:BITE as you could see, and a 22 page 100 topic per page archive is in no way a handy repository of information. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is fair. The template on his talk page may need to be toned down, but you really aren't convincing me that we should hobble ourselves by requiring that we retype the answer to questions that have already been answered dozens of times. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the idea an FAQ page that answers people's questions and concerns should be in place for these kinds of things. The level of help offered to new users on these matters has to date been borderline non-existent, I've lost count of how many times I've been asked to help by users that cannot translate the gobbledygook answers (sometimes even threatening a block) they receive to queries, and a few have been lost to the project over such things. Communication is everything. Re the proposal, I'd suggest thinning its middle but the beginning and end are good. Orderinchaos 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-use bot accounts

3) Bot accounts which are used for multiple un-related tasks are unhelpful, as they introduce the concept of collateral damage if and when one function requires modification/blocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not necessarily "collateral damage" but rather "inconveniences". I dare say that blocking BetacommandBot while he was tagging images while, say, removing stubs does not cause collateral damage if one blocks BetacommandBot for incorrectly tagging images. It simply makes things irritating or frustrating. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This position might make for an interesting essay, but doesn't do well here in this case. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in it's a valid personal opinion that others may not agree to? I can't see why anyone would think this way of working was a good thing. MickMacNee (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in, this proposal is something that would effect far more than this case, and would need a lot of consideration. Regardless if anyone thinks it's a good or bad idea, it's just not going to realistically happen as the result of an arbcom case. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this might be Arbcom creating a policy (or strongly hinting at it), when this could better be dealt with through community modification of existing Bot policy. Also, while this could be true of BetacommandBot, I could imagine it having a chilling effect on other users who might want to add a new function, but don't have the technical resources to run multiple bots. MBisanz ^talk 08:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are these technical resources? Why would someone technically able to add functions to bots not be able to run separate bots? MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to write bot policy, without having an understanding of how bots operate. Common frameworks like

β^{_{command 2}} 14:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Again this reply in my view merely illustrates the the idea that you have that wikipedia bot policies exist for the convenience of bot operators, irregardless of wider concerns. Regardless of technical difficulty (not I note in this explanation an insurmountable obstacle), this principle is a fundamental point, in various discussions your packaging of controversial and non-controversial funtions in one bot have clouded the issues at hand, when they revolve around one bot function, and not you yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a pretty significant change to bot policy. I can't be sure, but I would bet at least half of people who do multiple bot tasks do so with only 1 bot account. Mr.Z-man 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do half the bot operators arrive at arbcomm twice in a year? Perhaps ammend it to 'should not package known controversial or high throughput functions with other useful but harmless bot functions (never mind the bot policy states all bot functions should be of this description anyway). MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Error-prone" would probably be better than, or an addition to, "controversial." If BCBot was blocked only for controversy, it would never get anything done. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The majority of bots are fine. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, although there is an entirely separate issue if it is the only bot that does all of those tasks, sheerly from a risk management point of view and for example if issues with the user's conduct arise as has been the case here. Orderinchaos 06:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Bot policy shortcomings

1) The minimum standard of communication required by wp:bot of informing users of particular bots function/operation fails the basic requirements of informing new users and allowing editors to be able to use and understand wikipedia from day one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is it possible to understand Wikipedia in a day? It is not required to know all rules on Wikipedia (

WP:IMPERFECT) so allowing editors to use and understand Wikipedia from Day One is not a requirement. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

A first day contributor can easily be tagged by bcb in his first day. Ask yourself, is the information on bcb's page even close to understandable within a few hours, or even weeks? Is it even welcoming considering the red font and 17 point / 10 point boxes. Consider the easing in language of the various welcome templates and level 1 warning tags. Consider the helpful wording of all policies. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there still is no requirement to know all the rules from Day One. A guide to writing rationales that is easy to reach for newcomers is a great idea as is a more newcomer-friendly

Wikipedia:Upload or similar. Or perhaps linking to appropriate pages would be better. But that's not necessarily a failure of Betacommand - who is not The Bearer of a small part of 10c. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

The stated finding does not single out bcb, however, it should be noted his bot page meets the current minimum requirements of the policy regarding communication, other operators have much better bot pages in my view, I believe that should be the new standard, and outwith operators preference/ownership. MickMacNee (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this one be a prinicple? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an FoF. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed bot policy shortcomings, but the BAG and related are volunteers as well and they have approached the community for wider opinions and participation, so I regretfully must disagree. I think however that what you are proposing in terms of information given by bot operators to users through automatic means is entirely correct - it should be an obligation. Orderinchaos 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's responses

2) Betacommand is unresponsive to reasonable requests, per (a very small sample of the available evidence across several forums[13])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by x42bn6 - he is at the very least responsive to (reasonable) bug reports. I do think he can be unresponsive at times which is why I believe the scope of this argument should be narrowed. x42bn6 Talk Mess

I don't class bug reports as 'reasonable requests'. A bug is a bug, a reasonable request is a communication that requires an amount of consideration and reasoned reply. A bug report requires a very simple response, if bug reports were not dealt with a bot is easily blocked, so it's a self serving quality at best to adequately deal with bug reports. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why did I start leaving notices on article talk pages and notifying all uploaders instead of just the last one? those were requests. there have been others.

β^_command 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

~~It's still very vague nevertheless. I'm perusing the evidence to see if there are any "reasonable requests" that Betacommand did not respond to - if there are, could you add them to Evidence?~~ Scratch that, I read your statement more carefully. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, would this also be related to the times users have asked not to be notified and been declined as not having a good enough reason? MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable request. It's a general finding. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, I have implimented many request that users have requested, including a method that users can be opted out. (yes its not a public list, but there are 25+ users who have opted out.) And there have been other requests that due to the complex nature of the request its just takes a lot of time. that does not mean that I am not working on implimenting it.

β^{_{command 2}} 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Concur. Do-not-notify requests, A request the the 10c task at least place a different tag on the article if the named page is a disambig page, and the page that the image appears on is linked from that page, etc. Bug reports are worked on, although not often acknowledged until after the bot is blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, how is a bot supposed to know that some random piece of text is a disambig page? the bot grabs the pages where the image is used, and redirects to those pages. it then looks for the text titles. if page A,B,C,D are redircts and usage pages the bot looks for those in the text, if H is a DaB page for A,B,C and D how is the bot supposed to know that? it sees A,B,C, and D, and does not know to look for H.

β^{_{command 2}} 15:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

That's true. You're asking too much of a bot here.

talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

As I understand it, a db page is readily identifiable as it is tagged as such. If this is not machine readable, then this illustrates again why the current bot is a blunt tool, and requires much better explanation than the minimum implemented so far, and should be placing its own purposely worded tag. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not asking too much if the disambig page is linked from the image. If we're talking about images uploaded during the time the convention was for the FUR to link to article, and that article was then disambiguated, the bot should detect it. (For what it's worth, I still can't find where the Foundation or policy here requires that NFCC 10(c) be machine-readable. It should be policy, but it doesn't seem to be.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true but adds more server interaction because you can't rely on {{

talk) 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

(@Arthur Rubin) However, it would make the image rationale still wrong. There are a billion cases which seem obvious to us yet a bot has no common sense. I will tell you that string-matching is an intensive operation because BetacommandBot will have to go through the entire page to search for it, and it may still be unable to deal with the layout of the disambiguation page (not every page follows the Manual of Style), and it is of order O(n).

For example, say an image is linked to article A. A redirects to a disambiguation page A (disambiguation) which then has a list of 200 other links because it's a long list. Should BetacommandBot check every single article for the presence of the image then try and fix it? Definitely plausible but potentially long and tedious. The easiest way in this case would be for the bot to tell the user to use his/her judgement to fix the rationale rather than the bot loading up more pages to check what potentially could be a futile search. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no one user. The information that the article may have been moved should be put as a separate template in the image, so that the reviewing admin, if no one else, can see that a simple change to the FUR may solve the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is being linked to, but not by the page in the existing fur, then yes the bot can tag it accordingly so the reviewing admin is notified. However, there is no way that a bot that is blocked every time it makes a single mistake can reliably tell if a page is a dab or not since it relies on the use of a template that may or may not be there. It also cannot load every page linked to on the dab page and then determine what is going on. It would kill the servers and take too long and even then mistakes would happen. The way to solve this is to fix this when creating dab pages. It takes a human very little time to see what needs fixing and then fix it. Broken rationales aren't caused by bots - they are caused by users who don't bother to look for broken links when moving pages. If you want a bot to do this then we need a bot that checks every time a move is done and fixes the fur on included images. That would be possible.

talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

If he would acknoledge error reports, and state he wouldn't run that function of the bot until the error was fixed, the bot wouldn't be blocked every time an error was found.

I'm not familar with the database, but if the image has a link to an article which has a link to the image, that should be noted on the template added to the image as a possible patch to the rationale when scanning for 10c violations, especially if the image was uploaded before 10c went into effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That much I can agree with. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Orderinchaos 06:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's shortcomings

3) Betacommand cannot cope with the communication resulting from operation of a high profile bot, as required by the bot policy. Further, betacommand has developed an unhelpful 'us and them' view of the wider community [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The "cannot cope" part sounds excessively harsh. In either case, two issues (communication and mentality) are being combined here, which forces people who agree with one to appear to agree with the other.

cool stuff) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

"Cannot cope" is too strong. I would split the two findings as Titoxd suggests and would support something like "Betacommand sometimes appears to have difficulty..." Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an ArbCom resolution would be expressed in less emotive terms and I agree with Stifle's suggested change. Orderinchaos 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia resolution

4) The significance of the wikimedia foundation resolution on fair use has become unjustifiably permanently linked with that of over-defence of betacommandbot for image tagging. The function of bcb with regard the NFCC policy is relatively minor, considering it checks one part of the 10 part policy, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible for a non-compliant image to not be tagged by bcb quite easily, both by violation of any of ther other 9 sections, or by literal compliance with the (part) of the 10c statement that bcb is programmed to verify. This point has been unnecessarily furthered in discussions, to the actual detriment of genuine community efforts at achieving overall compliance with the resolution, where discussion has become polarised around this misleading cause celebre. Considering the human role in assessing for 10c compliance (every image must be humanly checked, tagged or not), no time is saved or lost through the bcb implementaion of a blunt tool approach to checking compliance with this part of a sub-section, if it is to be assumed that no summary deletions have occured for tagged images.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Police officer pulls you over. "Why were you speeding?" "But officer, I have a driver's license, insurance, registration, I'm wearing a seatbelt and I'm not on a cell phone, and I was only going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit!!" It isn't enough to do one thing right, you need to do everything right. Beyond that, I do not sufficiently understand your writing to comment. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Are you saying that enforcement of a foundation resolution is unjustifiable? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first comment, but the second one is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. MickMacNee (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain myself. First: Are you, in this proposal, suggesting that ArbCom say that it is unjustifiable to enforce foundation-level policy (that is, override the board) or that BetacommandBot does not enforce NFCC? If the former...well, I'm sure you see the problem with that. If the latter, then my first comment is relevant. In that comment, I am attempting to demonstrate that you need to follow ALL the laws, not just the ones which please you. I do not completely understand your wording, but I think that this:

"it checks one part of the 10 part policy, and by virtue of the fact that it is possible for a non-compliant image to not be tagged by bcb quite easily, both by violation of any of ther other 9 sections, or by literal compliance with the (part) of the 10c statement that bcb is programmed to verify"

Is saying that since BCB only enforces one part of the policy, and it does not check the others, so there are ways for non-compliant images to creep through, and BCB is therefore worthless and anyone who supports it is doing so unjustifiably. This is akin to removing all police patrols on highways, since they can only prevent people from speeding, and they can not prevent people from driving without a license, carrying dead bodies in their trunks, etc. It is also akin to saying that we should shut down antivandal bots, since they only catch some vandalism, and removing RC patrollers, since they do not check every edit. It is also blatantly wrong. This is because BCB provides a valuable service: The tagging of images which do not have a rationale, copyright tag, link to article. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have always said, I am not saying that arbcom should overule the foundation, and I am not saying bcb does not check against a valid policy. These are non-starters. Further, I did not say the exercise is worthless (if done as a package of measures), but, if bcb is continually considered the be all and end all of the policy, it might as well be considered worthless. After the quoted section, your language continues in the veign I am describing: and BCB is therefore worthless and anyone who supports it is doing so unjustifiably. Not what I said at all, but the leap you make is the embodiment of the problem I am highlighting here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For shame, Betacommand, for writing a bot that only checks for 1/10th of the policy. Shut it down. If we can't check for everything, we might as well check for nothing. <-- Is that what you're saying, Mick? Images that fail other aspects of the policy can be picked up by others. In that BCBot only checks for this, it's still an invaluable service.

Love 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Again, this comment demonstrates the leaps in discussions that I am talking about. Merely highlighting the realtiy of what bcb does do produces these responses from some editors. These merely enforce the impression that bcb is immune to any and all comment. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping your case here. Your logic is flawed. You say that because it is only checking 1/10th of the policy, that it is only of "minor" significance. More accurately worded, and in opposition of your claim (which the wording of is probably what's causing much of this confusion), regardless of the fact that BetacommandBot searches for one very important aspect of the policy, tagging thousands upon thousands of images, it provides an invaluable service without which would leave us with an unmanageable problem. That is the reality.

Love 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I have never denied it is doing significant work, but this rather obvious fact is being stretched so far as to completely ruin any and all proper discussion of exactly how it does it, and how it could do it more efficiently and smarter, by virtue of the 'words in mouth' responses above. I have not made any assertion either that its job is equivalent to 1/10th of the work to ensure compliance, this is another extremely simplistic view of the comments, and again demonstrates no real wish in certain editors to understand the issue beyond how to boil down discussion comments to a view apparently dismissable by a 'zomg, he means xyz' response, aka the strawman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

Actually, "minor" is your word. Perhaps if you worded it in a more understandable fashion there wouldn't be so much confusion. And strawman argument... By 1/10, I'm saying 1 of 10 parts. I wasn't equating an equal percentage of total value to each part, nor was I suggesting you were. Now you're just getting into semantics. How about tweaking the prose of the proposal to make better sense and be more clear, then we can discuss further.

Love 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I just read this again and I apparently hit edit the first time I read it before getting to the last sentence. To say no time is saved or lost through the bcb implementaion [sic]... is so far beyond inaccurate, I'm not even sure there's a word. Having BCB locate and tag the images saves massive amounts of time. Please, please tell me that I am somehow misinterpreting this text and that's not what you're saying. Then, please, explain to me what you really mean.

Love 04:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

How does it save time? It is established that images not taged by bcb can still fail 10c, and any of the other clauses, and all images must eventually be checked by a human, thus what time is saved? Bcb merely brings some obvious failures to the head of the examination queue, overall, it is time neutral to the actual process of meeting the resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators do not have to do that much work in deleting images because naturally there are users that will fix those images. Whether or not there is less work to do is immaterial - the work is just spread out. Human beings would have to check every single image, true, but BetacommandBot filters out some images so it makes work easier. And isn't that the point of a bot? To make things easier? The bot tells uploaders to fix their images. If they don't, they get deleted. If they do, it's less keystrokes to delete the images and then the deleter can move on to the next image. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again this pushes the idea that it is the uploader that only fixes an image. I would hope admins (who are also normal editors) are taking the time to fix fixable images (this might not be realistic when the bot dumps 10,000 images for deletion within 7 days). And I said elsewhere, it should not be a simple case of 'uploader hasn't fixed it = delete', a good image can be made bad by a third party (even long after being uploaded), and with the exception of source, fixable images can be saved by anyone. As for the filtering action of the bot, this is done in a very very blunt way, and could be improved for the benefit of image fixers, if betacommand responded to requests for change, and as per this proposal, the current bot wasn't given a continuous out of balance fever pitch defence with regard to legal protection for the foundation. MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others fix images, we know this. Admins clearing backlogs fix images. And you are not accurately explaining the situation. When BCBot did the big runs, several extra weeks were given to clear those backlogs so that more attention could be given. So it wasn't a seven day window for deletion. It was a few weeks. The bot saves us time by finding images that need to be corrected. Otherwise we'd have to blindly look at all images, which would be a monumental waste of time.

Love 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I know others and admins fix images, the reply addresses the view above that perhaps they don't/shouldn't. And as for extending the deadline, again, no one, including beta, thought to adjust the bot notice to reflect that, again an example of not very joined up thinking in the whole process, thinking the bot is the be all and end all of it, creating needless panic in people getting 10 tags in one day. And you still have to blindly check every image, because, as I am trying to hammer home with this proposition, a simple bcb run and mass-fix/deletion doesn't protect the foundation, for the myriad reasons above. The implication in your last statement is once all the bcb tagged images are dealt with, there's nothing more to be done. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the implication. I don't put implications in my statements. Your problem is that you read implications into people's statements and then misrepresent them. You need people to spend way too much time and kb to explain things in great detail that everyone else just gets. A common problem with images is non-compliance with NFCC 10c. In that Beta scans through images and puts those in compliance aside, leaving only those that fail this part, we're saved the time of weeding them out manually. No where have I said there isn't a need to check images for compliance with the other parts of NFCC. Me not saying something != me saying something is non-existent. Stop screwing with my statements. It's disruptive. Aren't these cases supposed to be moderated to a point?

Love 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I believe that even if BetacommandBot attempts a fix at one small part of the policy then it's not wrong. If it fails a small part of 10c then it fails the rationale - this does not mean that if it does not fail the rationale then it must have passed that small part of 10c. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't state it is wrong, I am saying it is given undue weight and defence in discussions. I genuinely believe people are actually not aware of, or don't want to accept, the reality of what the bot does for 10c as compared to the requirements and raison d'etre of the entire foundation resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get that feeling sometimes too - but I don't know if that is a problem. Arguments such as, "But he is enforcing policy!" are not wrong. The rationale needs to satisfy a bunch of clauses and if it fails one then it fails the policy. If we need to get such a message out by all means the Community as a whole should be able to hammer something out. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is unaware that BCB enforces NFCC 10c. I think editors each place a different value on that work. Those who defend Beta are not dumb to the reality of what he's doing. They merely consider it more valuable work than you and others do.

Love 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Once again, for complete accuracy, your opening line should read: "I don't think anyone is unaware that betacommand checks for compliance with a part of 10c, highlighting the need for a human to judge if the image is in compliance, with the collorary caveat that it is also perfectly possible to not be tagged by bcb and still fail 10c. Hence why distilling discussion comments to 'bcb enforces NFCC 10c policy' are a bad thing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCBot does enforce policy, it just cannot ensure 100% compliance. I have always stated that BCBot is one part of ensuring that all images pass our non-free content policy.

β^_command 23:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Yes, I would hope and everyone expects you would fully know what your bot does with regard to the policy, however this proposed finding refers not to you but to certain other editors views and statements involved in discussions. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the premise. Betacommandbot's functionality with regard to NFCC10c is a valid task. From what I can determine, BCB was never meant to check an image page against all ten crieria; in fact some of those criteria can only be judged by human evaluation. BCB is meant to be used as a filter, to check for the presence of a valid FUR. The reason it gets so much undue weight, is because the filter catches so much stuff-- RoninBK _{T C} 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per ST47. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval pages

5) As per [15], certain members of the bot approval group, conceieved and reformed as mere technical advisors, have shown bias and incivility in the wording of an approval page, against community views and in favour of bot operators, enforced through admin protection, off wiki discussion and early closures. Approval pages as per the current bot policy exist on wikipedia as the first point of call for new editors investigating the purpose/function of a bot.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The first 'point of call' is the bot's userpage. This is where a new editor is likely to look, not in some obscure archive of off a subpage of a policy that doesn't even apply to them. The approval pages are kept so administrators can review the approved tasks of a bot, determine if BAG approved it, what it was approved for, and so on. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but I repeat, as per the bot policy and as has been said and linked by bc many times, the approval pages are the first point of call for users wanting to understand the bot, if the operator chooses not to compile a more helpfull summary directly on their bot page (this does happen, such as the flickr bot). MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand the wording. "Conceived and reformed", what? And this seems to be based off of the recently approved NFCC bot, so when "pages" is used, what others are you referring to?

Love 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Correct, currently it should read page, per the replacement page singular (ammended). As I understand it, it was recently clarified that the BAG are meant to act as technical advisors to the community on bot matters, subservient to the community (not to imply they are servants of course), following reform after an Mfd. Thus they are in no position to make sweeping statements as made in that page, nor shut down or subvert discussion of it for non-technical reasons. Granted, as a result the procedure for objection to bots generally and not technically is now under discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again, combining two unrelated issues (alleged incivility/bias and BRFAs being the points of contact for bot operations). While I agree that BRFAs should probably be more visible, incivility and bias do not stem from that fact, or vice versa.

cool stuff) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

What do a bunch of threads on BC's talk page (the evidence cited) have to do with this at all? Mr.Z-man 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of course, a typo, now fixed. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think if this were in an article it would be removed as improper synthesis. Yes, the RFBOT was worded quite poorly and yes ST47 protected the page, but I disagree with the suggestion that the protection was done to enforce the wording. I also disagree with the mention of off-wiki discussion. It may be true, but its not quite relevant unless one presumes that off-wiki discussion is always bad. Mr.Z-man 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't find the evidence to support that. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Agree with Mr Z-man above. Also, the BAG is not unified - I've been happy in particular with the feedback from Martinp23, who has been both communicative and seeking to solicit more community input within BAG processes themselves. Orderinchaos 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Structured decommissioning of betacommandbot

1) The community assesses the various tasks of betacommandbot. All functions duplicated by existing bots shall be immediately decommissioned. For all remaining functions, these functions shall be described on separate pages (with or without betacommands assistance), with sufficient detail as to allow their programming into new bots by others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. There is no issue with having multiple bots perform the same task, it is very helpful for redundancy, and oftentimes owners of duplicate bots will have an understanding with one another and operate their bots in a complimentary way, completing the process more efficiently. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue here with general redundancy. This is a measure to remove duplication where these functions are within bcb. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. BCB does ~~good~~ invaluable work. Most of which is thankless, and some of which no one else wants to take on.

Love 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Given general events, and the second arbcom in a year, I think it is prudent for the community to work on replacements, and discontinue existing duplication. You have downgraded your view from 'invaluable' though for this comment I see. As for thankless, beta has a smattering of barnstars, so at least some editors thank him for his efforts. MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected for those who choose to read into others statements and misrepresent their intentions.

Love 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I merely noted it as it leapt out at me as possibly the first time you had not used the word invaluable in any post here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Too widespread. Wikipedia has multiple anti-vandalism bots running around. If any two bot operators have bots that do roughly the same thing, they can do things that help each other: Share the workload or check that the fix has not been applied before applying it. And the latter part is telling Betacommand to release pseudocode for his bot functions so that people can write their own bots based upon it. The code is still Betacommand's and I do not believe we are in any position to ask him to do such a thing. I also fail to see what this achieves, having a bunch of words describing the intricate details of BetacommandBot's functions. Is it in the hope that someone other than Betacommand will write a new bot to do these things? Well, they don't need the details - if they want the details, they can ask Betacommand - after all, it is still his code. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen a single instance of any willingness on bc's part to help others replicate his bot (as opposed to effectively license his IP). He can help by describing them, or not, it is absolutely down to him, but the intent is there, to describe in sufficient detail so as to code by others. This arbcom would never have existed had there been a legion of nfcc 10c bots as you say sharing the workload, all working to an adequately described and justified function. This remedy achieves the replacement of those bot functions not currently replicated, as a remedy to the evidenced failings of betacommand as a bot operator. MickMacNee (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have to help people duplicate or replicate his bot. He doesn't have to be absolutely selfless on Wikipedia especially things that are his. He may choose to share the functions with other users, of course, but that's up to him. If I write something to help me edit Wikipedia, am I under any obligation to share this with the world? It would be nice, of course, in the spirit of open source, but it may still not be in my interests to do so. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, this is a proposed remedy in light of bc's views being now well known regarding his willingness to help other coders replicate his bot functions and thus reduce reliance of wp on his IP library. MickMacNee (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would be comfortable letting Betacommand organise it himself rather than force a remedy under him. After all, he can simply say, "No". Does Betacommand have any plans on how he is going to help others replicate his code? x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to clarify: This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. As above, Betacommand has expressed interest in structured splitting of his bot to encourage replication and as a result forcing Betacommand to follow a set of rules in doing so is in bad taste. The Community hasn't encountered a problem with the way he is doing so (because he hasn't started) and I feel we should give him a chance first. After all, it is still his code. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the handing off of the operation, but retaining control of, the NFC bot, I am not aware of any plans to help replication of any functions. I believe there is a long reply from him on here on how tasks can't be split up. I am not in favour of handing off his code to other users because the primary source for requests for change remains the same, and half this arbcom, and the one before, relates to issues surrounding interaction with him. My proposal is how to achieve complete decommissioning of his bot functions as both operator and coder. MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, I have been holding my tongue attempting to be as nice as I can to you. But I am getting really sick of your personal attacks, insults, and constant harassment of me and other users. may I quote you? your goal is to is how to achieve complete decommissioning of his bot functions as both operator and coder. let me give you a suggestion stop your trolling and harassment and actually do something productive, like maybe improve the encyclopedia. (yes I know you havent though of such a radical idea) but that is what I am here for. your constant attacks are un-acceptable, any future attacks will result in further actions being taken. Yes I know you will attempt to wikilawyer your way around this, I am not interested in hearing your lawyering. Instead I am going to go do what I enjoy, Improve the encyclopedia.

β^_command 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

I'm sorry you see an arbcom proposal as a personal attack, trolling and harassment, but this does fit with some of your other replies to attempts to communicate with you. I held my tongue from commenting about you as opposed to your bot for a very long time through some extreme provocations if you remember, it is you that invited this procedure, in fact welcomed it with open arms, thus I will participate in it how I see fit or how I am directed to by the rules as I understand them. Feel free to review my contributions, use kate's tool if you like, you will find thousands of (un-automated) useful edits to the 'pedia. You will even find some today. I know you have done this at least once before when you came to involve yourself in an article I was involved in. Take whatever action you feel is appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, what does this mean, then? You misunderstand, this is a proposed remedy in light of bc's views being now well known regarding his willingness to help other coders replicate his bot functions and thus reduce reliance of wp on his IP library. And I'm still not sure what this achieves by splitting up things. If BetacommandBot does things that other bots do then as long as they cooperate the more computing power, the faster things are done. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you thought that I wanted to force bcb to hand over his code. I know he won't so clarified that this proposal takes that into account. The general point is that it would possibly be better that bcb not run any bot functions, and that is what this proposal attempts to achieve, by defining the functions as separate entities for others to code. MickMacNee (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, alright then. I oppose it still because I believe he's an excellent coder who does a lot of work including not-so-controversial tasks. It is just going to be hard to reprogram a bot if Betacommand opts not to help which he is certainly entitled to with drawing weak conclusions based upon the bots' results. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in part - if this matter is not resolved soon then the bot may be taken away by a future ArbCom proceeding in entirely less favourable circumstances. I agree in so much as stating that a structured decommissioning over time is necessary and a community process to duplicate the functions needs to happen - it's simply bad risk management not to. However I think the mandatory/compulsory feel of this proposal is not what we should be aiming for. Orderinchaos 06:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot policy upgrade

2) The bot policy is upgraded to better satisfy the requirements of communication and transparency on wikipedia. Unrelated multi-use bot functions are required to exist as separate bot accounts. Bot pages should be linked to summary/description pages, maintained by, but outside of, the bot operator's (or BAG) ownership, in replacement of the minimum requirement of linking approval discussions. Content of these pages is treated as both technical and non-technical, and thus community owned. These pages are considered live, and shall change with all known changes in function/scope of use/bug fixes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ArbCom does not dictate policy. What's more, allowing the community to override the bot owner's judgment with regards to bots' userpages is a bad idea, as it is the bot owner, not the community, that has an understanding of the bot. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom can highlight where specific policies fall short of the expected norms (i.e. the basic policies) of wikipedia. I have not advocated overriding bot owners judgement, and I specifically retained the idea that that page is the main responsibility of the bot op (without being owned). I see no scenario where a bot owners assertion about how to explain a bot could be overruled by the community given truthfull and accurate discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The ArbCom could probably make a statement that a policy is lacking in some way, but I don't know they can upgrade policy as you are suggesting.

cool stuff) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

That's obviously the case, the arbcom (if in agreement) highlights its deficiency, with the expectation of its improvement by the community. MickMacNee (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions as to how would be good. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Betacommand is monitored

1) Betacommand's talk page shall be monitored for at least 6 months, specifically for his responses to established editors, and his archiving/reversion practices.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you want to monitor his talk page, then use the watch tab. You don't need the ArbCom to tell you to. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually think I was not aware of this? As said below, this is not about individuals monitoring it, this is about making it clear people are monitoring with the principles and findings of this and the previous arbcom case in mind. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who, exactly, is supposed to be told to watch it? I mean, many of us already do. And we respond to requests for Beta, so that he doesn't have to.

Love 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Without prejudice, impartial members of the community. So that would probably suggest at the very least no-one mentioned in either arbcom case, or anyone in active discussion with him at the time. Hence calling it a monitoring exercise. Of course if that leaves no-one willing to monitor, then yes, this might be an unworkable remedy. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I believe there's a "watch" tab up above which you can use to monitor the talk page of Betacommand if you wish. What is special about his talk page that needs watching? Through all the evidence, it seems his incivility occurs in the project space not his talk page. Also, it seems his archiving method is either manual or done by Shadowbot3. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given an example where a request was not followed up, and then archived without reply, this is not against any policy, but clearly fits the behaviour evidenced in this case. If I were to watch his page, I think you know the likely result. MickMacNee (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, perhaps he took it to heart? He doesn't have to reply to everything nor does he have to act on everything or he may have simply have forgotten to read it. I'm busy pulling straws from various places but Betacommand seems to be active at the moment - perhaps he can clarify. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents I am referring to do not involve any elements that might be taken to heart. Forgetting about it might be fair, but might also indicate my point that bcb cannot cope with all reasonable communications his activites generate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary: anyone can do this at anytime. Acalamari 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people monitor his page, but not necessarily with the clearly stated aim of impartial enforcement. As can be seen by this case, anyone talking an interest off their own back may be considered as harassing or attacking bc. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can this remedy be realistically enforced?

cool stuff) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

By being generally communicated to editors as part of the final decision, thereby allowing anyone raising an issue with bc's conduct on his own talk page to be seen as enforcing an arbcom remedy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if this remedy failed, how would things change? Raising issues about his conduct would not be possible, as it is not an ArbCom remedy? I simply fail to see the point of this proposal.

cool stuff) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Click here. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a parole would be more productive - we can all see what is written but this proposal doesn't ask us to do anything. In this I'm going to have to disagree because the proposal doesn't propose anything on which a parole could be based. Orderinchaos 06:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:jd2718

Comment I am aware that I have not formatted my proposals for the workshop page. If the community or the Committee decide that the proposals have merit, I trust they will find a good and proper way to express them. Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Flat hierarchy

1) Wikipedia is a 'community' (of sorts) with a flat hierarchy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, but not really. There is standard language elsewhere. Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One community

2) While different editors perform different tasks, and may tend to interact most frequently with circles of editors performing the same or similar tasks, Wikipedia remains one community with many parts, not several separate communities joined by (differing) interests in an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Is this just a statement or extension of

WP:OWN? Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Looking over each others shoulders

3) While different editors perform different tasks, it is normal and encouraged that any (and many) editors have an interest in how those tasks are performed. This interest extends to laying out and discussing guidelines, participating in discussions of their applications, etc.

Proposed. Consider the participation of non-admins in RfA, the participation of uninvolved editors in arbitration, the participation in discussion of, say, blocking policy, of those who neither give nor receive blocks... Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Bots of bots, by bots, for bots?

1) The tasks of setting up, approving, modifying, etc, etc 'bots' has fallen almost completely on bot operators. Much of the community never interacts with bots, has no interest in what they do, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The task of operating bots is performed by the mystical bot operators. Imagine that :) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is right, isn't it? Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, most bots (the exception being bots that leave messages for people) should just run in the background and not be noticed at all by the community in general. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bot v editor

2) When there is editor/bot interaction, it is often (usually?) bot v editor - a code glitch, image tagging, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are you trying to get to the point that all bots do is attack editors? If so, how about the many archiving bots, the AIV helperbots, User:BAGBot, the proposed User:CorenANIBot, and so on. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. My point is that bot-editor interactions, where they do occur, are usually negative and unpleasant. (the other 95% of the time they are simply not noticed). I have absolutely no interest in assessing blame (other proposals can handle that). I am concerned about what I call 'the gulf' - both that it exists, and how to close it. Jd2718 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That is what the proposal says, isn't it. I suppose this is mostly true. There are some bots that are relied on for positive reasons, like those I listed above. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There's plenty of harmless helper bots which most users would not care about the functions of. Orderinchaos 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message may be intended for you. It may be impersonal.

3) Bot messages, even well-written, are often perceived to have an impersonal flavor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. This is illustrated by the opposition of the community towards a welcoming bot. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I know this is true, but I can't find a better way to express this. Maybe it is not relevant (but I suspect it is) Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, also see the turing test if anyone is interested. :) One could also reference not templating the regulars or only using templates to speak with other users as a weaker example as it doesn't even use bots yet this is bot-like activity. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small pool

4) The pool of non-bot folks who get involved with bot policy is small. When conflicts arise, rather than normal discussion ensuing, each team proceeds to its own side of the bar and prepares to brawl. The small pool of non-bot folks who know bots is not large enough to officiate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't really like this, or accept it's truthfulness. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I know this is true, but there must be a better way to express this. Maybe it is not relevant (but I suspect it is) Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first sentence, cannot support the second. Lack of conflicts between bots and editors makes it very hard to generalise. I watch

WP:AN/I and find that occasionally people block malfunctioning bots such as bad interwiki links reported there. The bot is then fixed and unblocked rather quickly. No drama, no fuss. I prefer wording similar to how the Community is not familiar with the bot process. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

A separate community exists

5) The bot-writing, running, discussing, and approving editors have become a community separate and apart from en.wikipedia as a whole.

Disagree. Many bot-associated editors are involved in other tasks. Perhaps the bot-related pages are primarily operated by those interested in bots (shocking!!) but bot people are not completely split off. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Subsumes 1, 2, 3,and 4, but may be too sweeping Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Bot folks encouraged

1.1) Bot folks encouraged to seek out and welcome non-bot folks' participation in bot stuff.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Language leaves much to be desired. "Folks" is not a word typically used by an austere body such as the arbitration committee. However, agree with the spirit of this. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. They may want to establish targets for non-bot-operator involvement in normal bot processes. Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-bot folks encouraged

1.2) Non-bot folks are encouraged to participate in discussions in bot places.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Language leaves much to be desired. "Folks" is not a word typically used by an austere body such as the arbitration committee. However, agree with the spirit of this. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. A throwaway, really, without some framework or guarantees. Jd2718 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (In reply to ST47 I think Arbcom if they took this on would clean up the wording - the meaning of the idea is clear enough, and can be easily agreed or disputed without ambiguity. If the wording were aggressive, proposing drastic remedies or taking liberties with the language to offend people I'd feel differently, but none of this user's propositions fall into those categories.) Orderinchaos

The community is encouraged

1.3) The community is encouraged to close the gap between bot operators and other editors. They may choose to examine bot-related policies, membership in BAG, a group to write bot messages, or any other place where the opening gulf can be closed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure if we should be suggesting that 'non-bot folks' seek membership in BAG, as that requires the knowledge and experience that 'bot folks' provide, however I would suggest that they assess and comment on the many backlogged BRFAs, gain a familiarity with the system, and then consider becoming more deeply involved. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Requires clarification about what "non bot people" are exactly. Writing Mediawiki bots isn't hard. I think what is needed are more people who care even when Betacommand isn't an issue. To be honest, how many of you would care about BAG or bots in general if Betacommandbot wasn't tagging images? This is more about fair use and the ridiculous warring that is going on than about bots. Let's call a spade a spade here. The vast majority of bots on Wikipedia attract little or no community interest and are unlikely to ever do so. Most BAG work has nothing to do with fair use. To encourage people who otherwise don't care about bots in general to get involved is not wise. We're supposed to have a consensus on non-free media in the shape of a policy that seems to be a comprimise that neither sides are satisfied with. The fact that a bot is involved in this is solely due to ther high number of images - the dispute would still be there even if the bots weren't required. A solution that aims to solve this by reforming BAG rather than tackle the real issue is going to fail and we will soon be back here for round 2 if that is allowed to happen.

talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

Worded very oddly, I believe the intention is to get more people involved in the bot approvals process (which may or may not be a good idea, some of the opposes on the adminbot-RFAs were downright paranoid) but the wording - "close the gap" - suggests there is some sort of class difference, where one group is seen as better than the other. Mr.Z-man 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting people involved and giving people power are two different things: Getting them involved helps us (BAG) to gauge the need of a task, gets more eyes on trials, and speeds up the process. Giving them power causes chaos. The former is acceptable, the latter is not, and I think this proposal is intended to promote the former. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, how does this proposal resolve the dispute here? How is it supposed to deal with the alleged behavior described in the evidence? This is not going to work as a remedy and those who get involved as a result of this will soon loose interest once the dispute/drama is gone and another drama has emerged and caught their attention. As far as I understand, one only needs to write a bot of some legitimate use and weigh in on discussions once in a while to gain "power" on BAG anyway - what exactly is the problem? We aren't here to attract volunteers to BAG, we are here to solve a dispute.

talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply