Revision as of 16:52, 18 March 2008

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Basic standards of civility will be strictly enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time, enforceable by brief blocks. For the duration of the ban, banned editors may leave comments on the talk page of any non-recused clerk, provided this privilege is not abused. Daniel (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Decorum

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"All Misplaced Pages users..."?? Happy‑melon 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's implied. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to insert it, regardless of the extent to which the wording implies it: ambiguity should be reduced to the absolute minimum. AGK § 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 ~ Evidence 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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)

Tu quoque

4) Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Lawrence § t/e 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Administrators

5) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 WP:BAG members are trusted by the bot operators community. The way BAG members are elected does not appear to have wide community scrutiny. This is part due to apathy on the part of the non-bot programming/commentating community. An example of the way BAG members are elected (or in this case re-elected) can be seen here. There also seems to have been some sort of trial system that ended recently. See here. Maybe some current members of WP:BAG could give a full and frank appraisal of how the groups works and how this has changed over the years and what changes are planned? I'm not a member (I couldn't program a bot to save my life - though I may try and learn one day), but some of the recent changes I suggested included having non-technical members (see here). This suggestion has been repeated here. In my view, the main issue with WP:BAG is the need to encourage more community participation to avoid drift from communal norms. This does not just need more people participating in bot requests, but it need bot operators and BAG members actively canvassing opinion during bot requests. I would also note the rather poor response so far at the following BAG threads: Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Concerns about category work by BetacommandBot and Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Multi-task bots. It may be that BAG don't see this sort of fundamental policy change as part of their role, but they could take much more of a lead on this sort of thing, providing of course they get community review at the appropriate stages. I may, of course, have just been on the wrong page. Much more extensive discussion can be seen here, concerning the nobots system (a way to exclude bots from certain pages). Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

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

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 WT:BRFA that bots should have extended trials which will solicit community input (ie - a user sees a bot and can comment on it while a nomination is still open and undecided, thus we get input that way). In addition, the proposal is that users can request that a bot is put into an extended trial after aving been approved, if consensus for its operation changes. During this time the nomination would again be open. I like Carcharoth's idea of appointing "lay" members to BAG and is something that should be chased up (not by ArbCom I think...) along with other ideas. My feeling: the issues around BAG were out of hand for some time. The trend at the moment is that things may be getting better. Martinp23 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the proposal at hand - BAG members can be removed following discussion ending in consensus determined by a crat on WT:BAG. Martinp23 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot operators

6) All contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator. All policies apply to a bot account in the same way as to any other user account. Bot accounts are considered alternative accounts of their operator for the purposes of the user account policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)

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)

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 Betacommand case, Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned for, among other things, inappropriate use of automated tools, unsatisfactory communication with those questioning his actions, and generally poor judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence#MickMacNee has been uncivil and disruptive. Kirill 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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  03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 _C 04:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 _C 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 _C 05:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot and associated discussions. Kirill 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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 _C 05:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Betacommand

4) Betacommand (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 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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

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  03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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 _C 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 _C 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

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

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 05:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Two points. Firstly, I have proposed an alternative, at #ST47 suspended from BAG. Secondly, the removal of ST47 does not necessarily equate to an automatic removal of Betacommand: it is very much dependent on the evidence presented in the matter. The question of "has abuse been undertaken, and is removal or suspension from BAG necessary?" should be addressed on a user-by-user basis. AGK § 20:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages?". Happy‑melon 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand restricted (I)

2) Betacommand (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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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)

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 _C 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

You mean Misplaced Pages: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 _C 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)--

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)

Betacommand restricted (II)

3) Betacommand (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:

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

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)

Obviously, any such restriction would also apply to alternate accounts, such as Betacommand2 (talk · contribs). Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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? Lawrence § t/e 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 _C 05:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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)

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)

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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  03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AGK § 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes for the first part, but I would say that the "from WP:CIVIL..." part onwards shouldn't make it seem like bot operators are to be demi-civility-gods on-wiki. I think we only require them (us?!) to have the same level of etiquette as any other user in good standing. Martinp23 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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 :) AGK § 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Bot operators (II)

2) Editors who operate robot accounts are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Misplaced Pages'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:

Comment by others:

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

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? AGK § 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot accounts

3) Robot accounts exist to improve the efficiency of operations on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, and should not be permitted to edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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? AGK § 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Role of the BAG

4) The Bot Approvals Group provides the function to the community of scrutinising the operations of robot accounts on Misplaced Pages, 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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(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 Misplaced Pages, and neither extends into other projects, nor onto a Foundation-wide basis. AGK § 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed based on initial thought: the BAG should operate as an indirect democracy. AGK § 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Dispute resolution

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. AGK § 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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) ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is suspended from the Bot Approvals Group, 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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?? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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 _C 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was this discussion? Martinp23 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a possible and less-extreme alternative to #ST47 removed from BAG. The implementation of this proposal is very much dependent on the evidence presented, and the conclusions we draw from it: I am treating this proposal as a "one of several" courses of actions at the present time. AGK § 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Happy-melon

Proposed principles

Bot accounts potentially disruptive

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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. Martinp23 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually, most prior cases have used the terminology "used", rather than "utilised", in their respective decisions. For example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Deletion of pages portrays the "use" ("are expected to use the deletion and undeletion abilities") word choice being employed. Of course, utilisation and usage are two identical terms, and very much mean the same thing, so I don't see a need for deviation at this time: it really wouldn't allow any practical advantage. AGK § 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 _C 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in 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)

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Misplaced Pages doesn't have "leaders". Happy‑melon 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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  03:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is more or less a distilled version of WP:BOT... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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)

"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. Lawrence § t/e 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is already the case as defined in WP:BOT. No editor is exempt from the requirement of having approval to run a bot task. Martinp23 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

If someone notices a discrepancy, it's generally accepted that it should be reported to WT:BRFA, and then BAG and community will deicde in a small discussion. In practice, it would go to ANI and the bot would probably be blocked - this isn't really ideal for obvious reasons... Martinp23 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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. Lawrence § t/e 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot functions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 WP:IAR to MFD. Maxim_(talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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. Lawrence § t/e 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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? Lawrence § t/e 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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 wheel war and an escalating dispute. Concerns regarding repeated and/or severe administrative misconduct should be raised with the administrator in question, addressed via the requests for comment process, directed to the Arbitration Committee, or, in cases where urgent action is required, communicated directly to a steward. However, administrators may be blocked for editorial misconduct on the same basis as any other established user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Inappropriate_administrative_actions, which I wrote. John254 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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, Archtransit's block of Jehochman, Mel Etitis' block of 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? Lawrence § t/e 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Proposed findings of fact

Betacommand

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

Coren

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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)

Comment by others:

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  09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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 my evidence clearly shows, Betacommand has used bots and scripts to disrupt Misplaced Pages on many occasions, and over an extended period of time. John254 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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 _C 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Absolutely not. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

Coren reminded

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