This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tznkai (talk | contribs) at 14:25, 10 July 2009 (→Advisory Council on Project Development convened: +1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:AC/N
• WT:ACN

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

Discussion of announcements

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

Original announcement.

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original post

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Original post

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

Announcement

Changes of account name by restricted users

Original announcement

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

Original announcement

Procedure for internal resolutions

Original announcement

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

Original Announcement

A Man In Black

Original announcement, Final decision.

What is the appropriate forum for community discussion of the issues mentioned during arbitrator discussion of Remedy 5: Ikip warned? I don't know if I or another user will file anything soon – Ikip has been barely active recently – but I thought I'd ask while the case was fresh. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard is usually the forum used for community discussion of concerns over the conduct of an editor. AGK 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Having some familiarity with AN and AN/I, I think that neither is appropriate since admin review or action is not obviously required. WP:Requests for comment/User conduct was my first thought. If there is no further comment, I'll ask a few of the commenting arbitrators directly. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

RFCURFC/U is probably your best bet. –xeno 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean RFC/U, not RFCU... Fram (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. –xeno 14:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for break. I cannot ever recall a single instance of a user taken to RFC/U or right back to any form of dispute resolution after an RFAR case involving them, let alone where they picked up remedies against them. As Ikip is on vacation, what is the possible benefit to Misplaced Pages of doing an RFC/U toward him? This smacks and feels of petty and grossly inappropriate retaliation on it's surface, but I would like to be convinced otherwise. rootology (C)(T) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am curious about what you believe to be my motivating reason for retaliation, so feel free to contact me directly.

• If one reads the Remedy 5 discussion I linked and other Ikip-related proposals, much of Ikip's conduct was determined to be outside the scope of a case focused on AMIB and was thus not considered – which is not the same as considered and dismissed as without merit. There was an implicit referral back to the community.
• I explained the timing of this question in my opening comment. It has been my observation that Ikip's behavior improves significantly following a wikibreak, but the disruptive behavior has so far recurred, leading into yet another wikibreak. A discussion would address the next recurrence. Perhaps Remedy 5's official warning will be enough, but the most accurate way to judge community consensus is to conduct the discussion.

Flatscan (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best timing for any user, in this sort of situation, facing an admonishment from the Arbcom, is when and if the situation comes up again, per what you cited. Unless Ikip does something in the future outside of norms, then it should be looked into. Not when he's on a months-long recess for IRL business/travel/whatever, and not upon his return, unless he does something again in contradiction of that same admonishment. If that happens, it would be polite to talk page notify everyone involved with this RFAR of the discussion whenever, or if, it happens in response to those future actions, so we can pick up where we all left off. In the meanwhile, there's far more important things for us to aim our brain cells at. It's a non-issue in the meanwhile. rootology (C)(T) 09:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While "hope for the best" and "wait and see" are reasonable approaches to this situation, I don't see them mentioned or hinted at in WP:AGF. When I started this discussion, I had considered the points you raise and was already leaning towards postponing any filing. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Original announcement

Ban appeal: Betacommand

Announcement

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand (previous BC discussions)

• Providing he has learnt from his previous mistakes, I have no problem with this. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I understand that the ban is one imposed by the community (link to discussions at top of this section), and therefore the ArbCom has no remit to determine that it may be lifted outside of the community wishes? While I would support the lifting of the community ban and unblocking of BC it can only be through the mechanism of a AN debate or RfC. My concern would be that were ArbCom to allow BC to return under restrictions that BC would "game" (in doubtless good faith, like he did with previous restrictions) complaints by the community in that a RfArb/AE would be required to determine if the restrictions have been violated. Should it be decided that it is a decision for the community to make, rather than ArbCom, then BC's talkpage can be opened for him to make a request for unbanning (which could then be discussed in Misplaced Pages space). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see any comments from you on the other thread, but ArbCom did the same thing (overturning a community ban) just a few weeks ago. Just noting. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The banning policy actually notes that appeals may be sent to ArbCom; "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org)". NW (Talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Therefore I would note that I support the unbanning of Betacommand under the terms that were previously agreed by the community prior to Betacommands actions which lead to the ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • We should be perfectly clear what those terms are. In lieu of everyone digging back through the five megabytes of discussion we've had on Betacommand, could someone summarise where we were before the ban? Happy‑melon 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• While I had known of this ban appeal ahead of time and hope that it passes, I am more glad that the Arbitration Committee sought to post a notice that they were considering an unban request, which they haven't done in previous cases. I hope that this decision to announce to the community that the ArbCom or BASC is considering an unban of a certain user continues. NW (Talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Assuming ArbCom sets and enforces a certain set of restrictions, I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, I wonder if it is worth it simply because the "community" has shown to be out to get him in a way. Reading the discussions regarding the last few blocks he received before being banned show just that - many people were apparently watching and waiting for the opportunity to complain. So I wonder if this will happen again as it did so many times before. I'd hope not, but I don't really think I would be surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• No way, no how. Beta was given endless warnings his behaviour was inappropriate, was an endless source of drama and repeatedly, wilfully flouted community norms regarding personal attacks, civility, bot policy, and sockpuppettry. The community ban was enacted after endless discussions until all but his most hardcore supporters supported the ban after he repeatedly failed to heed warnings or comply with restrictions. Removal of beta was a huge benefit to wikipedia, as the size of the talk archives related to his various misdemeanours demonstrates. Hell, when banned from wikipedia he then went and edited on simple and didnt follow their bot policy either. What earthly reason would arbcom think there was grounds for overturning that particular community ban? Give him another chance? He was already given about a dozen "one more chance" to prove himself and he failed to do so every single time. He is banned for a reason, keep him that way. Viridae 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Flout, not flaunt. Pzrmd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thankyou. Viridae 23:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I kind of understand what some people meant at the recent WT:BAN decision when they said that publicly posting invitations for comment would lead to drama? May I ask that people send their comments to ArbCom rather than post them here, so that this doesn't denigrate to a big shouting match? NW (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• If he has no civility or personal attack issues, I think it's fine if he can edit again. hmwithτ 15:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. Are we to believe that BC has had a radical change of personality in the last few months? rspεεr (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with Beta being unblocked with very 'binary' restrictions that are super-hard to game, and that could give us public access to his knowledge and insights while at the same time limiting down hard all the self-destructive stuff. I just mailed it in detail to the AC, and I'm one of the people that went last year from supporting Beta to being fed up myself the fourth or fifth go-round. I'll post a simple version of what I sent them to my own talk immediately for the curious since it's not helpful here to avoid a big shouting match, for anyone wanting public discussion. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• He has done a lot of work on Misplaced Pages, and it made me quite sick to see him banned. I would love to see him back, whether or not I like him. Pzrmd (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible terms for provisional suspension of community ban

1. Edits under only one username and will be subject to regular checkuser inspection.
2. One-year topic-ban from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages.
3. One-year 0RR or 1RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages.
4. Six-month editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism).
5. One-year ban on operating bots or automated scripts of whatever nature (including edit summaries). Thereafter, may only run bots fully approved by BAG and only for pre=-approved tasks.
6. Inducing or attempting to induce others to run proxy bots, broadly defined, is prohibited.
7. One-year civility restriction.
8. Subject to one-year's mentorship by two admin mentors, with monthly progress reports to ArbCom, and an extension review at the end of the first year.
9. The mentors may block BetaCommand for short periods at any time if they believe the provisions are not being adherred to.
10. Without prejudice to (9), ArbCom may, at any time, reinstate Betacommand's community ban by simple majority vote in a motion in the event of (i) disruptive behaviour of whatever nature or (ii) any breach of the foregoing provisions.

Thoghts?  Roger Davies 17:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add the following. They may seem draconian, but BC has a history of a) not giving a flying fuck what anyone else thinks, b) wikilawyering his way out of everything.

1. Betacommand issues an apology to the entire community for his behaviour
2. He explains exactly what was wrong with his behaviour before, and undertakes to not repeat it in any way whatsoever. This will need to include a blanket and unambiguous statement that he will no longer attempt to game or wikilawyer the system, and any attempt to evade responsibility or explain why he was right and we are wrong will be unacceptable.
3. His ban from automated tools needs to includebots, Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, Friendly, etc etc. Anything that is not his actual hands typing the actual information and then clicking 'save' is not allowed.
4. He discloses all of his socks. I for one do not believe they were all found.
5. This is his last chance, period. Any violation of any of the above (or any other Misplaced Pages policy) means that's it, end of the road, goodbye and do not ever come back.
6. In terms of adherence to site policy and the above restrictions: they are to be intepreted in the broadest possible manner. BC is to have zero opportunity for any wikilawyering or gaming, and is going to have to dot every i and cross every t and in general do what he is told. If he starts with any wikilawyering, that's it, goodbye.

→ ROUX ₪ 17:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger, what about this, as well? "reverse-civility restriction. Anyone found to be goading or trolling Beta, no matter who they are, will be blocked as if Beta himself had violated his civility restriction." To be honest, in regards to Beta (and Giano) this would be incredibly helpful. rootology (C)(T) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Define "baiting". Betacommand's major problems stemmed from his refusal to enter into civil discussions regarding his edits, especially his bot edits. Since he tended to react inappropriately to good-faith requests for him to modify his bots behavior or to explain his action better, I don't see how he was ever really "baited" in any of these problems. People made honest requests of him, and he acted inappropriately. There was no baiting involved... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea but impractical, I think. Itcould easily lead to way more drama than it would solve. No one actually has to respond to goading or trolling and egregious cases can be dealt with through the normal channels. But otherwise, I'm not in favour of gold-plating the proposed restrictions too much; they are already very sweeping.  Roger Davies 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking as a community member, I would be fine with any unban of Beta, however I would appreciate a strict "one-and-done" parole of some sort for the sorts of behavior that got him banned in the first place. Incivility, running unregisterred bots against policy, refusal to communicate over his edits, and running socks should all be expressly and completely forbidden; if he returns to his behavior he should be banned instantly again. In my opinion, he can come back, but he has certainly used up all of his "get out of jail free" cards at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly the spirit, if not the letter, of the restrictions.  Roger Davies 19:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Given BC's history of ignoring the spirit, it would be best to unambiguously state precisely what the restrictions indicate so as to avoid drama. In any case, whatever the restrictions are, it would be a very good idea for him to respond on his talkpage before being unblocked to explain what he thinks they mean. This will allow for any ambiguities to be addressed; for example, I think that it is not outside the realm of possibility that BC would define using NFCC-non-compliant images as 'vandalism' in order to get around the restriction on edit frequency. I reiterate that a clear and unambiguous statement from him that he will not engage in his previous behaviours, including a definition from him of those behaviours, would be a very good idea. → ROUX ₪ 21:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the restrictions should be more specific . Actually, I think they should be strict (and perhaps not even include a vandalism clause), but less specific. Betacommand won't become a useful and trusted community member again unless he starts learning to follow the spirit of the rules instead of trying to interpret the letter of the rules the way he pleases. I'm not sure he can do that, and am not convinced that it is worth the try. Kusma (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the idea of Beta being unblocked, and miss his image bots- they did good work. (Also, I do not feel that Beta should be banned from NFC issues- my position is probably extreme, but I don't really mind.) Civility issues are obviously a problem, as are running bots that do not do what they should. But this is a classic example of when the whole issue has been grossly exaggerated- and yes, I feel there's been an awful lot of baiting and "out for blood" behaviour. Anyone who felt wronged, as well as those who generally disagreed with Beta's actions, (as opposed to his methods, which were the issue...) sought a ban. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• It really takes ten separate points to lay out the terms under which this user can return, and six others suggested as well? And there's not a single one of them with which I can disagree. If I were to be asked what the magic number would be for "being more trouble than it's worth", I don't know what I'd answer, but I'm almost positive it'd be less than ten. Simply not worth the drama — we all have far more important things to do. Mlaffs (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• One of reasons that he has been banned is his abusive sockpuppetry, so before "discussing the unban", Checkuser on his account/IPs should be done first. If he still was using socks, then this request would be meaningless.--Caspian blue 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Viridae, Betacommand has had plenty of "last chances", and they have proven time and again that they believe that policy does not apply to them, and skirted and even blatantly disregarded restrictions placed upon them. That not even mentioning the sockpuppetry and and chronic incivility. What gives the community any assurances that this time would be any different than before. If Betacommand is unbanned, I can foresee that their conduct will lead to one or two things within six months to one year, either resumption of the community ban or a request for arbitration. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• ArbCom is showing great willingness to repeatedly punch itself in the head by reinstating multiple banned users - but I see that as a good thing, sooner or later one attempt will be successful. I would like to see a statement by Betacommand as to what areas he would intend to edit, given the restrictions. Clarity on the NFC issue would be important: never remove an image, never comment on a talk page, never edit on policy or policy talk pages? And given Beta's keen interest in automation, will 4 edits every 10 minutes, all day every day, be acceptable? What about when the edits are erroneous? And are run-of-the-mill admins prohibited from taking action over violations? Franamax (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• That last is a good point; it is "my" block that currently stops BC from editing, but I am willing for him to return to editing (under restrictions which, if adhered to, will resolve the problems previously associated with the account). However, I will re-instate the indef block if I consider he has violated the terms under which he returns notwithstanding any ArbCom accredited mentor(s) he may have - and I think that any sysop should be so permitted. I had expressed my concern that ArbCom may agree to a form of words that might be used as a device in limiting the use of the admin bits by other sysops other than those approved by ArbCom, so I should prefer that the ability of admins to act independently of any agreed mentorship/review process - per good admin practice, of course - be recognised in any form of words agreed by BC which enables him to return. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• To quote Albert Einstein “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. How many times was he indef blocked, reinstated under strict terms, and then either ignored those terms or sockpuppeted his way around them? Unblock him if you must, but I for one won't be expecting different results.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• If it would make other editors more comfortable with this, there are at least two users currently willing to serve as mentors for Betacommand should he be unbanned, myself one of them. Myself and the other editor (who I won't name, as they haven't commented here yet) have worked with Betacommand for this appeal and have helped work out the ten conditions Roger put forth above, all of which he is willing to accept. Betacommand has also stated that he is willing to work in relatively low-impact, non-controversial areas that cannot be automated for the first few months of his return.
  Betacommand, his conduct issues aside, has proven to be a valuable contributor to the English Misplaced Pages and other projects. Despite the ban, he has continued to be a useful contributor from back-backstage through development of his toolserver scripts and the bots he operates on the IRC network. I believe that, more than anything, demonstrates to us how much we are lacking with not having Betacommand actually editing here. He clearly has the motivation to be a useful contributor to this site. The main issue that remains is the civility concerns; I believe with a few editors (mentors, and others) helping to support him as he gets started again would largely resolve this issue, both defending Betacommand from attempts to harass him and letting him know when he's getting close to crossing a line. I foresee Betacommand's return to be a net overall positive to the project, and would strongly encourage the community to allow him this chance to help us once more. Hersfold 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to Roger Davies) - I think that 4 edits in 10 minutes is a little bit of an excessive restriction. It should be relaxed, to, say, 4 edits a minute, or so. I could make 10 edits in 10 minutes, without using a bot. With regards to Beta's ban appeal, I'm happy for him to be unbanned, as long as he's learned from his mistakes. The main issue for me was incivility, so if he can at least be civil, then I don't have any problems with it. Steve Crossin 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "I could make 10 edits in 1 minute", considering the context. :-) Hersfold 23:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, not really. 10 edits in a minute...I'd have to be using huggle, which would be automated...Steve Crossin 01:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility was an issue, but also the defiance in the face of questioning which led into incivility. The issue with any numeric goal for edit counts per unit time is that we (or at least me) can be confident that if Beta so intends, he can trivially set up a script to adhere exactly to those conditions. But that's not the spirit of the conditions, which is that "you, Betacommand the human being, need to personally view the entire page that results from your edit before you confirm the save". Beta has repeatedly skipped that bit, in my mind using the assumption that since the software works, no-one will be able to tell the difference. This has been repeatedly contentious. I understand the comments from quite a few editors on the lines of "I could make that many edits in any single period" and "I could do 40 edits using browser tabs" - but we're talking about Betacommand here, who has a history and is proud of developing automation tools.

Beyond civility, we have the question of how to recognize if Beta is exceeding the limit on scripts, and this has been subject to lawyering in the past. Simple numeric limits may prove to be insufficient.

Thinking about this a little more, I'd rather see a condition #11, that Beta announce his intention to embark on any series of mass edits, no matter how rate-limited, at an appropriate venue. Possibly WP:VPR as proposed in the last kick at this particular cat. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your concern about Beta continuing to edit with automated scripts, while it is possible for someone to write a bot/script with an edit throttle set to exactly the restriction level, it would be pretty obvious what was going on if there was a very steadily spaced amount of editing coming from Betacommand. Attempting to modify the script to hide this give-away would be unnecessarily difficult, unreasonably risky and highly error-prone. Betacommand may have had problems before, but he's not stupid. Further, as I said above, Betacommand has already stated he is willing to commit to the restrictions mentioned by Roger above. Hersfold 01:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, I have to assume that BC's programming skill is at least equal to my own and likely much greater. From that perspective, I can tell you that it would be quite easy to throttle pre-planned edits to simulate sleep-wake-work cycles or whatever. I could just train the algorithm on my own edit patterns or yours. I'd throw in the odd timing error too, and apologize for it shortly after. He's not a stupid guy by any means. That said, I'm satisfied with your and Matt's assurances on this, with the following caveats:

I'd still prefer to see guidance on exactly what the edit throttle rate exactly conveys: "4 per 10" all day-every day or not? Obviously a technical 5 shouldn't be actionable, but what about sustained patterns?

And I've yet to see guidance for the wider community, specifically other admin concerns as expressed by LHvU. Given Beta's contentious history and the probability of trolling baiting questioning of the editor, this will be important going forward. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The occasional breach of the 4 edit/however long restriction probably wouldn't be actionable no, although repeated breaches could result in a temporary block from one of the mentors or another administrator, probably after speaking to Beta about it. Hersfold 02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm the other admin Hersfold is referring to. Remembering that I have in the past indef blocked Beta, I think it would be fair to say I am not easy on him. But he is dedicated to the WM mission of free culture and can contribute well, the issue is that he does make more errors than are desired and has in the past had issues recognizing this. I believe the community/Arbcom can craft acceptable sanctions and I will be willing to enforce them and hopefully mentor Beta back into the community. Also, I bear in mind that WP's record with unbanning people is speckled. Sometimes it is successful, such as with VintageKits and Rootology, other times it fails miserably such as Guido den Broeder. This means the unban of beta may result in a re-ban, but it is not a certainty that it will. So that is why I have an open mind here. MBisanz 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As a note, some experiments have positive outcomes. Some have negative outcomes, but are still "successful" experiments. If the community bends over backwards to give a banned editor another chance, and the result is a re-ban, is that a failure? Yes, in a way, but also no, it isn't. Just a thought. Put me in the camp that thinks this will most likely fail, but that we as a community should try anyway. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand has put a lot into the project. His misconduct/s have been mostly (sorry if this is blunt, Beta) impetuousness of the form "I think its right, they don't have a flying clue, so I'm going to do it/say it regardless", and rebellion at being told this isn't okay. I put his socking in the latter case. What i see is attitudes that can easily be outgrown, often in the course of a year or two. What I don't see is long term willful malice or desire to do harm. Regrettably while the good conduct has been excellent, the immature conduct has been highly disruptive and taken a large amount of community attention, caused issues, and so on. My hope and suspicion is that his issues are ones that are readily outgrown, and he has the will long term to do so.

My view:- Give a chance; if it doesn't work wait 9 months then give a chance again. Good contributors who are determined to help the project despite hard times but fail due to matters that time will probably cure, are worth it, and worth giving time the chance to cure :) And no punitive conditions, go forward not backwards. Beta - you've seen what doesn't work, stick to what does. A statement from Beta of what he now thinks about the past cases would help to let us and Arbcom know where he is on it all. FT2  20:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

How quickly we forget! Few Wikipedians have been able to cause disruption on the scale that Betacommand did. BC managed to poison the atmosphere around several Misplaced Pages processes and drive away large numbers of new users with his hostile rules-mongering. Mentoring will not work because, as we have seen, he is content to lie about his actions and intentions if he thinks it will further his goals. He is also, apparently, content to use sockpuppets to evade his ban, and we should not reward him for this just because it's difficult to keep him away. If Beta is ever allowed back, it has to be under severe restrictions (no bots, no rapid editing, no sockpuppets, no insults), and if you take those four pastimes away from him it's unclear what exactly he would do. rspεεr (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've read the whole discussion above, but Betacommand has essentially agreed to those four conditions, and more, already. He also has a plan for some background areas in which he would like to start working for his return. Hersfold 22:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw lots of proposals but missed the part where you said that BC had agreed to that one. I still think it's far too early to allow Betacommand back -- after all, after he blew his fifth and sixth chances (I'm estimating) and got blocked, he used up his seventh and eighth by sockpuppeteering. If you must go forward with this plan, I'd consider it an interesting experiment, but I have no optimism for its outcome. rspεεr (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Can we have a statement by Betacommand then, in his own words, on his talk page? Someone will have to unprotect his talk page for this, and obviously keep a firm watch over the actvity there. I would like to see some (but not all) of Roux's points above addressed, a description of what the "some background areas" are, and a discussion of the core 10 restrictions. I certainly don't want any apology, but I would like to see recognition of what went wrong and a plan for going forward. Franamax (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rspeer, just one point that to the best of my knowledge, Beta hasn't been socking for at least 4-5 months now, so it is hardly rewarding sockpuppetry to give him a second chance. And as Hersfold says above, there will be conditions for him. It would be very helpful if you reviewed the proposed restrictions on him to help work out a final version. MBisanz 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rspeer, MBisanz and I have been working with Betacommand to prepare for this appeal, along with some members of ArbCom, via email prior to this announcement being made. I mentioned above on July 4 that we "worked with Betacommand for this appeal and have helped work out the ten conditions Roger put forth above, all of which he is willing to accept." Hersfold 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to the ten commandments, I'd like to echo Franamax's request above. But I also think that 4-5 sockpuppet-free months is an awfully short statute of limitations, and creates a moral hazard which encourages others to try to evade a ban -- hey look, if you've got enough supporters, you get to come back in five months. Even FT2, who supports unblocking Beta, suggests another chance with a ban of 9 months if he screws up -- so wchy does his previous "really final last chance" become not so final after only five months? FT2 suggests it is because he has grown up since then, but as far as I know, Betacommand is not a teenager, and his personality that simply doesn't work with Misplaced Pages is the only one we'll see. rspεεr (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"so why does his previous "really final last chance" become not so final after only five months?" - Because we assume good faith and are willing to give him a shot if he says he's changed and is willing to contribute. Hersfold 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"May have grown up". The condition wasn't accidental. FT2  03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Since learning of Betacommand's wish to resume editing, I have extended invitations to him to discuss his editing status and a possible return. Clearly, he brings substantial positives as well as substantial negatives. The challenge is to craft a proposal that curtails the negatives while allowing the positives to flourish. The current proposal is not quite what I would have suggested. Both the strongest positives and the strongest negatives are tied to his bot writing, so it is not clear that the project is best served by a one year moratorium on bot writing. What I would ideally suggest would begin instead with mentorship and a proxy agreement, modeled after ScienceApologist and the Optics article improvement drive. As a first stage Betacommand's ban would remain in place, but with a mentorship/proxy agreement: one or more experienced and trusted coders would be authorized to run bots on Betacommand's behalf, pending acceptance by the bot approvals group. The mentor/proxies would review the code and interact with other editors. Other than simple bug fixes, no changes in approved bots would be permitted without reapproval via the bot approvals group. Possibly this would be tied to a requirement to publish the active code where it would be visible for review. If all goes well, the Committee or the community may review the situation in 4-6 months with an eye toward allowing Betacommand to resume editing directly within structured limits. The bot mentor/screeners would likely remain in a gatekeeper role until the community's trust is restored. Durova 02:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I propose an additional restriction on Beta; namely that involved admins should be specifically permitted to block him if he violates the conditions. (The number of uninvolved admins is small; possibly limited to those who got the mop after he was banned.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• There are still uninvolved admins. I haven't been involved in the dispute at all and I'd be quite happy to block him if necessary. I can also think of a few other admins who also haven't been involved, so I don't think its necessary to step away from our usual standards. Having involved admins block him would just make things infinitely worse IMHO. Sarah 13:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would support giving Beta a second chance. I've had a bit to do with him since the ban and I do feel his communication skills have improved and he is clearly very committed to the project so hopefully with some restrictions in place he will be okay. I think it's worth a try; if it doesn't work out he can always be reblocked. I will also say that I appreciate the arbitration committee making this announcement. I was shocked and appalled by the Kohser unban, to such an extend that I haven't felt able to make a comment in that discussion out of fear that I wouldn't be able to keep a civil tongue in my head. Sarah 12:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• As a wise man once said; fool me once, shame on — - shame on you. Fool me — You can't get fooled again.. After entire subsections of AN and AN/I devoted solely to this user, his numerous problems and numerous chances, enough is enough. No matter how competent and knowledgeable a person may be, they still have to co-exist cooperatively and collegiality with other editors. This user has shown that he is simply unable to do that. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah to unban, basically according to the terms stipulated above, although I would hesitate to place terms on those who might "bait" Betacommand, because such baiting is hard to define and newer editors might not necessarily know about such a term or exactly how it gets applied. Editor seems very committed to the project, and has seemingly done a good deal of work to help the project. Perhaps WikiProject User Rehab could be used as one tool to help him return and be productive. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing that has been a problem in the past is the difficulty of pinning down the cause of errors in automated edits, or anticipating them. Betacommand is obviously a very competent programmer, but there have been issues in the past with unanticipated errors that were (for various reasons) difficult to resolve. Might it help if he were required to disclose the code to proposed scripts/bots, at least for a defined period after he is allowed to resume automated editing? Otherwise I support the unban. Nathan 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ROUX #2 seems a minimum request. The community needs to see whether he understands what his restrictions are, and why they needed to be imposed, if the community is to agree to an unban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Betacommand's whole problem is that he thinks he can do whatever he want, regardless of what anyone else thinks, and refuse to play nicely with others. Now where would he get the idea that he can get away with all that? Oh right. Because he can, in fact, get away with it. He got away with it for a long time before he was finally banned, and now he pinky-swears he'll be good this time so he's going to be allowed back. I agree with the person who posted the Einstein quote above. The only think that will be different this time is lots of people wasting time supervising him to enforce all those conditions. --LP 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would support an unban under reasonable conditions. Thoser proposed by Roger Davies seem fine. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support an unban. --Dirk Beetstra 10:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would not support an unban without a demonstrated period of problem-free editing on a sister project. Even then, the inability of Betacommand to categorise criticism (into useful/trolling) and his general huge level of drama makes me think that its just not worth it. I would certainly be for a "cooling-off" period of at least 5 years, when one considers that the last set of discussions took nearly a year. The level of disruption has to be taken into effect. In addition, I don't know what he wants to edit, since previously he used only/mainly automated editing. I assume a banned account can still be used to set user preferences for reading wikipedia? AKAF (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The status of arbitrator Coren

Once the situation stabilises, it would be helpful for the committee to make a statement on the current (and, if known, future) status of User:Coren's membership, replacement and anything else that may need disclosing. It would also be appreciated if the clerks could update the relevant pages to reflect the current state of play (foir example, whether or not Coren has mailing list acces). Mahalo,  Skomorokh  17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the only mailing list whose membership the clerks can see is clerks-l. The func-en, arb-l, checkuser-l, and oversight-l lists are all private, even to the clerks. MBisanz 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that the clerks were in regular private contact with the committee and would be in a position to keep on-wiki records up to date.  Skomorokh  18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are in regular communication, but what we cannot see, we cannot update. Just like we can't bring over proposed decisions from the arbwiki because we don't have access there, we can't update a list we can't access. I suspect it would be updated if something had changed though. MBisanz 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Coren announced that he is going off the Committee now. Per past practice, if he decides to return during his term then he could return to his seat. I see no problem with him retaining the OS and CU tools per past practices. If he decides that he does not have as much interest in using them, then he can return the tools. This all will be more clear when he returns from his break. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Flo, appreciate the clarification.  Skomorokh  18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2 Conclusion

Per Arbcom's request, the referees in the discussion arising from WP:ARBMAC2 have made a determination of consensus, which we have listed at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus‎. There is still a small discussion on ethnic distinctions ongoing that was added last minute, but that can work its way through later, and the bulk of the dispute is hopefully resolved by the consensus reached. We're ready to answer enquiries, and suggest implementation of the consensus take place fairly soon. Best wishes, and apologies if this is the wrong place! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding job by the referees here, a big wiki kudos to all three. This outcome does an excellent job of both applying consensus and being in line with wiki policy. Before implementing this, please wait at least 48 hours from my posting here for additional arb and community input. Unless told otherwise, the outcome may then be implemented. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll look to implement tomorrow evening (UTC) unless told otherwise. Not sure if you want this process logged anywhere else, so leaving it in the hands of Arbs and their clerks Fritzpoll (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I put a link on the main case page underneath the decision in question. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development convened

Original announcement

Cool story, bro. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this Committee was formed with particular issues in mind that need addressing. What are some examples? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the group was really formed with reference to specific issues, actually. There have been a few vague ideas bounced around recently (e.g. having someone analyze the impact of flagged revisions if or when that actually gets trialled, coming up with an easy-to-understand summary of key rules that could be provided to new editors, and so forth), but these may not necessarily be things we ask the group to look at. A bigger motivator, I think, is just a desire on our part to have a someone readily available that we can turn to when we need advice.

The other aspect of the group, of course, is slightly more experimental; we think that pulling together a pretty diverse set of experienced, insightful editors and asking them to discuss issues relevant to the project is likely to produce something useful (regardless of whether the issues to consider are originally suggested by us, by the members of the group itself, or by other editors). Kirill  03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting, definitely. Somewhat suprised that no-one who has experience in content disputes was invited, as far as i can see. While arbcom doesn't deal with content, someone who has experience doing so would probably be of benefit. Vassyana and Xavexgoem come to mind. Steve Crossin 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I hope that this council will concentrate on project governance issues, not individual content disputes. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it Cla68, that will be the case - individual content disputes are not for the group which will concentrate on more general governance and long term objective (that will certainly be my input). Perhaps the goals and remit of the group need top be clearly defined before it convenes for the first time. Giano (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd also hope that this council will not concentrate on content issues. This is an issue of having people from multiple areas of Misplaced Pages in a "think tank" and I think someone who's had experience in content disputes, whether that's an issue the council will address often, would be of benefit, either way. They may at times give advice or make proposals on to how to solve certain complex situations, or make proposals on new methods. This is why I think it would benefit to have someone from the content DR aspect of things at the table. Steve Crossin 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I've no idea who else has been invited, but the statement currently says that there are some people who've yet to respond, so it could be that someone/s will pop up, and it also seems that ArbCom would welcome more suggestions. --86.170.162.220 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; and anyone expressing their interest is very much encouraged to mention if they can bring experience that the group currently lacks to the table. Kirill  11:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these council discussion sessions going to be held in public? MickMacNee (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the plan at the moment, although we're not quite sure yet how exactly they'll be set up. Kirill  11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest someone clicks WP:Advisory Council on Project Development and off we go. Kirill, I suggest we start by formulating some kind of agenda. As this is an innovation of Arbcom, are there any wishlists you'd like prioritise? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested agenda:

Item 1. A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Item 2. Plot the overthrow of arbcom

MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Patience, patience. ;-)

ArbCom will probably suggest some items in the next week or so—we don't have anything resembling a coherent list at the moment—but some of them are likely to be low-priority and of limited interest. As a practical matter, I think the easiest way to get something like an agenda going might be to have each member suggest a couple of topics that they'd like to see discussed; at least then we'll have a decent-size pool to choose from. Kirill  12:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, if you can't post sensibly then don't post at all - go play outside. On a serious note, what is the cap on numbers to this commottee going to be - to my mind, there is sufficient already - the more involved with any committee the more difficult it becomes to reach agreement. I am also concerned by the huge ratio of admins and Arbs to non-admins - hardly a cross section. Giano (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the body is likely to grow significantly, at least in the near term; I think we might add another half-dozen members or so, depending on interest. As far as non-admins go, we didn't look at admin status as a factor when putting together the list of invitees; I think it's largely a function of long-term editors who are known to us being more likely to be admins than non-admins. Of course, if you have any suggestions for additional members, please do send them to us. Kirill  12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

looks very interesting, and certainly most welcome :-) - I'm crossing my fingers that at least most of the group's activity takes place on this wiki - there are any number of ways of achieving this sensibly... hopefully there are enough members cautious enough of private mailing lists, and private wikis to ensure some good old fashioned wiki-transparency :-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)plus I get to throw stones at people I like then... always fun!

Congratulations to all of the appointees. I have a couple comments and questions:

• Is this group going to be added to Func-L, since they share some of the "community leadership" responsibilities but not necessarily the privacy responsibilities
• While I appreciate this group is a series of experienced and dedicated Wikipedians, I am concerned by the appearance of elitism - which I am afraid will dull its effectiveness to address the problems of those less hooked-in.
• Related to the previous, I'd like
• Is it possible this council is given a less.... whats the word... pretentious title? "Advisory Group" perhaps.
• This council doesn't have a clear mission statement or purpose but a series of hopes and caveats ("coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue" and "anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally."
• Its entirely unclear what the relationship of this group is to the arbitration/dispute resolution process is. Is this group going to be loosely affiliated, simply given the imprimatur of Misplaced Pages's formal social mechanisms, or is this group "too involved" to be involved in bringing forward arbitration requests and jump early in attempts to defuse disputes?
• It is my hope that this group acts with energy and solicits input from a broad range of Wikipedians

--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One further question, in the interests of transparency, would Risker, Stephen Bain, or Vassyana like to explain their opposition? (Or Casliber and Carcharoth their ambivalence?)--Tznkai (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)