Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand

I have blocked Betacommand
For using or appearing to use automated tool on hi main account in direct violation of the community sanction that is logged here. In his recent contributions I counted nearly 80 edits in 2 minute period - in addition to the edit summaries clearly indicating the use of twinkle:. Viridae Talk 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the edits and I endorse the block. Haukur (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits are based on Bot requests/Archive 22. —Giggy 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not a breach in my opinion. Twinkle isn't a bot, and this was needed.  Syn  ergy 10:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesnt TWedits add up autosummary as ( TW ) ? --  Tinu  Cherian  - 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - it;s easy to remove that. Talk Islander 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can configure your TW edit summary to whatever you want using your monobook.  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't possibly confuse automated summary with automated process. This was done with his main account, not his bot account. Can we unblock him now?  Syn  ergy 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot account is blocked. He is forbidden from running anything that is or gives the appearance of being automated on ANY account. Per the link linked by giggy he also screwed up at least several of the links which east has fixed. Viridae Talk 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That is not what the resolution states.  Syn  ergy 10:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account." - Viridae Talk 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonkery. He didn't do anything wrong. Blocking over this was futile. Plus, wouldn't you think east would have blocked him if he was such a detriment? Never mind, don't answer (I have to go out and get some coffee).  Syn  ergy 10:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a under a community sanction. he broke the rules of that sanction He got blocked for it. The "he is helpful" atrgument was paraded around every time he pissed the community off right up untill when he was sanctioned. It doesn't hold any water at all. Viridae Talk 11:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed. I was hoping to use that water to brew my coffee. But while I'm gone, would you be so kind as to explain why he is not located here and cross reference that with your block? (I'll seriously be back, but I am leaving for the store).  Syn  ergy 11:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oversight perhaps? (not the tool) Some else has asked that question of Ryan P (who closed the sanction discussion and enacted the sanction). Either way, it IS on the arbcom case page, as linked above. Viridae Talk 11:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think it does hold water as an excuse -- the first few times. It is the persistence that was the problem and which led to the restrictions.  Here is the notification given to Betacommand by Ryan Postlethwaite.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yes, I have asked around . It bugs me that RFAR Beta 2 gets cited (even if it's just the link name), when the current restriction was placed in favour of RFAR Beta 3, which was declined because the "community is dealing with it". This and at least the last block should have been placed with explicit reference to a linkable community sanction, not to the last available ArbCom decision. AC is asking us outright to deal with what we can do ourselves, this should have been done in a more clean way. (BTW, endorse block) Franamax (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, and the discussion. I guess I just don't see (or maybe no one has pointed me; to where) why these edits were not good edits. I figured we, as the community would judge these on a case by case basis. But based on this case, and this case alone, I still don't see why these edits would be grounds for a block. And yet, I can see this is just a time waster (my objections are; its not directed at anyone else) so I'll drop it.  Syn  ergy 11:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do his edits to delink also convert an en-dash to a "-"? hereFritzpoll (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Acutally, it's still an en-dash, it's just not code. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an automated or semi-automated tool -- of the type that Betacommand is specifically prohibited from using, and as has frequently been the case there are significant issues with the edits. This is absolutely the kind of thing that the sanctions were intended to prevent and I wholly endorse the block. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. Fifty-two strikes and you're out.  Nandesuka (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block. This is precisely the type of edits that led to the community sanction: Unapproved automated edits that in some cases cause disruption of the edited articles, with false edit summaries ("removing links to deleted articles" when what was actually done was formatting changes). Is he back? (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The block is necessary, due to the ruling violation, although at least some of the edits look reasonable -> deleting references to the non-existent article List of male boxers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand is arguing that he is using a "semi-automated" tool and that that is not a violation of his restrictions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He made dozens of bad edits like this one - if he specifically pushed the 'y' button to approve every bad edit that isn't, in my opinion, a point in his favor. Haukur (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, this is a clear violation of his sanction. the wub "?!"  13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is nuts. This is the sort of behavior where you arrest someone for jaywalking because they ran across the street to save a child from a burning building. Beta wasn't running a bot, and not ONE of the edits in dispute has been reverted. Not one. What Beta was doing was GOOD for Wikipedia and you're penalizing him for it. God I'll be glad when this witch hunt for his hide on a stick is over. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, no. He used twinkle, made a mistake and was reverted by East718's bot, then he made the correct edits. But you're correct on the rest.  Syn  ergy 14:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also endorse the block. This has happened far too many times. Jonathunder (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the link to the actual sanctions? The link given by Viridae links to RFAR/BC 2, which gives him permission to run his bot and other tools, as long as within policy. Everything in this thread references (There must be a more appropriate, linkable place for this) The community sanctions give restrictions on automated tools, but TW is semi-automated. . If these sanctions were meant to restrict him from using TW, why was it not removed from his monobook? Jennavecia (Talk)  14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Twinkle can be set to automatic modes, the recent adminbots RFC showed there was an automated deletion component written for Twinkle, whether Beta was using such a script, I do not know.  MBisanz  talk 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check here. It's not fully automated. Jennavecia  (Talk)  14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fuzzy area might be the sanction about "edits that appear to be automated." And a series of edits like this might not technically be automated, but they do appear to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In what way is Twinkle "semi automated"? As far as I know it does not require you to preview all your edits before approving them. Besides, Beta's edits were done at very high speeds (only three seconds between each edit on average), so that even if he was reviewing the edits, he cannot have done any proofreading at all other than clicking the "approve" button, since just the page loading that happens when you do an edit takes about three seconds in itself. This was clearly done without manual approval, and is why the community sanction also prohibits Betacommand from making edits that appear to be automated. I also see that many of those who are defending Betacommand are new users who might not know about past issues. Betacommand has a long history of making automated edits that are poorly thought out and buggy, and in a few cases also intentionally disruptive. He also frequently made bot runs that were untested and buggy without any previous approval. Therefore, there was consensus to remove him of the right to use automated tools, because frankly, the little benefit that his edits brought was outweighed by the massive disruption caused by them. The fact that this particular run had fewer errors than usual for Betacommand is not relevant. He violated the sanction, pure and simple. Is he back? (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Betacommand has provided a screenshot on his talk page that clearly shows that he was just answering "yes" to all edits without reviewing the actual changes to the articles, just as I thought. Also, this was not done using Twinkle, as some claim. Is he back? (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * dude. He was using twinkle the first time. Check his contribs.  Syn  ergy 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the set of edits he messed up which had to be reverted, dude? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who are the new users? I'm LaraLove, I've been here for over a year and a half, and you can trust I know all the history with Betacommand. Synergy has been here for like two years, Hammersoft formerly edited under another name and you can be sure he knows all the history as well. So time served here isn't an issue. That issue resolved, I'm not posting the link again, but the tool is semi-automated. This vague loophole inserted is valueless when being applied to constructive edits, none of which are in need of reverting. The mess about his edit summaries is irrelevant. They stated he was removing links to a deleted article, he did. In that he made some formatting corrections with them is irrelevant. So where, exactly, is this block justified as a benefit to the project? Jennavecia  (Talk)  14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand is forbidden from making automated edits, and the screenshot he provided clearly shows that he did not check the edits before he made them. Really, where's the difference between a fully automated process and one where you blindly type "y" before every edit? --Conti|? 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The downplaying comment "he made a mistake", which someone stated earlier, shows the danger in running these things even if he weren't barred from doing so. So it also suggests he was being careless, never mind disruptive. I don't know about wikipedia, but in my shop we test things before we run them in production. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the comment. But the mistake did not burn down wikipedia.  Syn  ergy 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but it could have. I asked this question on Betacommand's page, and he deleted it without comment, so I'll ask it here: Is there any kind of "test system" for wikipedia, for editors to test mass updates before running them in "production"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, for semi-automated tools it's called "show preview" (or "show changes", rather). I know AWB automatically shows all changes before you save an edit, and I hope Twinkle has a similar feature. --Conti|? 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Where is the disruption? The disruption stems from the block. Stating someone else's assessment of the situation suggests carelessness to you doesn't add anything to the discussion. Where's the disruption to the article space? Where's the mistake? Where's the negative impact on the project from these edits? Not counting this thread? Jennavecia  (Talk)  14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the mistake? Here is the mistake. 217 edits that had to be reverted. --Conti|? 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand is claiming that this was a screw-up on Twinkle's part, and that he only intended to perform one edit. Personally, I am not familiar enough with Twinkle to evaluate that claim. — Satori Son 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er.. Betacommand wanted to make one test edit and accidentally made 217 test edits instead? Totally not automated ones, even. That sounds.. pretty odd. --Conti|? 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He requested east revert him, which took four minutes. Jennavecia  (Talk)  15:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This was clearly an automated process. There is little chance that Betacommand could make close to 50 edits a minute and put due thought into each of those edits. This is precisely what the editing restriction against Betacommand was supposed to stop. Most bots don't even run at this speed. I was actually considering asking the community to lift the restrictions slightly on Betacommand so he had more freedom to make bot like edits, but unfortunately for the time being, I'm going to have to forget about that idea.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, the community, apparently yourself included, does not know the difference between "fully automated", "semi automated", etc, and the general note you left when closing the last discussion stated only "automated" which can be interpreted either way... I think its just great that we're dulling out punishment for things that we don't  even know anything about (at least thats the way it looks to me). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an automated process - no thought went into this, I don't care if Betacommand pressed y to ever edit, he didn't have time to think about the edit - that goes against the editing restriction in my eyes. No one can honestly suggest that a user can make nearly 50 edits a minute that aren't almost fully automated. This was precisely the thing that the community restriction was supposed to stop.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People can easily make 50 edits in a minute without using a fully automated script - hell, without using a script at all. Maybe later I'll run a demo. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we've seen the screenshot, so we know that Betacommand was using a tool - whether he clicks yes without thought, or he programs the computer to do it makes no difference in my eyes - they're both automated.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to call it automated - it is faster; that is all. The editing stream which has been shown in that image has not been called into question; they were good edits.  If there was not such a history with BC, good edits at any speed would be acceptable.  But there is a history, and the community wants a leash on him, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
 * In regards to pywikipedia, the rate at which these edits occurred is not indicative of the rate at which he was reviewing the edits. During the formulation of the request, the operator is devising how to invoke the tool to do the appropriate edits.  When approving the edits, it is very normal to quickly press "Y" to all diffs that look correct, because the edits are so small, and the operator is only looking for the diffs to be exactly as requested.  In pywikipedia, the diff review process is disengaged from the edits actually taking place in the background.  Even when carefully reviewing many hundreds of changes, the edits occur at the rate that the database permits - i.e. under times of high load, pywikipedia will not make any edits, which means that the user reviewing the proposed changes will usually be finished long before the changes are being made.  What this means is that even if the operator presses "Y " before realising that a diff was abnormal, the operation can be aborted because the changes lag behind the approval process, so there is plenty of time to press control-C and prevent the abnormal diff from being performed.
 * I have no problem with us rewording the sanction so that BC must "throttle" his editing to 10 edits per minute, but slightly higher would be more appropriate in my opinion. pywikipedia can enforce a maximum number of changes per minute.  I dont know about AWB. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But (according to the screenshot) he did not look at any diffs before he pressed "y". He looked at "- * List of male boxers " and pressed "y". This might also explain why it took some 200 edits for him to notice that the first run didn't work as intended. --Conti|? 11:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the Twinkle bulk mess with the latter pywikipedia edits in that screenshot; the edits in that screenshot are all . John Vandenberg (chat) 11:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the edits to confirm that they are all good? Seriously, did anyone? I just checked a bunch of random edits, and found what I suspected I would find eventually: Here Betacommand's edit results in an empty "See also" section. This is exactly why you do need to check every edit before you make it when you apply "general fixes". Yes, every single one of them. --Conti|? 12:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did rigorously spot check Betacommand edits in the 24 hours prior to his block, and also loosely reviewed his contribs from the month prior to it. Edits like this are good edits.  They are not perfect edits, because they resolve one issue, and create another much smaller issue, but on the balance that is acceptable.  You will find similar edits in amongst the contribs of most bots.  If this task had of been done by another person with AWB or pywikipedia, the diff you point to would more than likely be identical except a different persons name on it.  If a person had to do the task by hand, there would be more errors and probably worse errors. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we have different editing philosophies, then. I don't consider an edit that fixes one and introduces another error a good one. At the very least, if pointed out, someone who introduces such minor errors should go through his recent contributions and fix them himself. Additionally, a person using AWB would (or should, rather) not have made the same edit, because AWB shows the changes before you apply them. So, ideally, the editor would have spotted the empty section and removed it himself before saving the edit. Betacommand wasn't able to do that, because he did not preview his edits. --Conti|? 12:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While I sympathize with those arguing that Beta's edits were constructive and useful and we should not be shooting him in the foot for technically violating his restriction, I have to endorse the block, as well. The whole point against sanctioning against these types of non-approved rapid edits is not because we suspect Beta of having any malicious intent, but because in the past the abuse of this style of editing did cause problems. The spirit of the sanction is not to prohibit automated edits per se, but to force Beta (and in reality this should apply to anyone) to consider their actions before hitting the "submit" key. It is abundantly clear that did not happen here. Shereth 15:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. He's still doing the type of thing that has caused problems many many times before.  And, it caused problems this time.  The block is perfectly good- Betacommand needs to change his behavior to prevent further blocks.  This is the one thing he appears unable to grasp.  So, the blocks will continue as needed. Friday (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How many more blocks are we going to give him before he's blocked indef? In my opinion, based on the block log, he should be blocked indefinitely. D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to indef Betacommand for doing something good for Wikipedia (namely removing links to a deleted article) then you'd better indef block me too. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By God, indef me, too, then. Jennavecia  (Talk)  15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not at all the point DNM was trying to make - Beta has been blocked in the region of 20 times - any other editor with such a record would have been indef-blocked by now. Whether this specific block is justified or not, you're not seriously telling me that 20 or so blocks are all wrong? Talk Islander 15:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just that we shouldn't see 20 blocks and go "Ok just block him indef". That's a knee jerk reaction. Many of the blocks are unfounded, accidental, etc. If the Arbitration Committee felt a need to indef block him, they would have. But, in the arbitration proceedings this wasn't even suggested as a proposed remedy. I think it's blatantly obvious there's people here who would prefer he be indef banned. So what? There's plenty of people that would like to see our fair use policies over turned. It's not a reason to indef block him. I think that decision must lie with ArbCom in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As Hammersoft pointed out, many of his blocks were not warranted. Beta has many enemies, and some of them jump at an opportunity to block him. He's exhausted the patience of a portion of the community. But that portion of the community has exhausted the patience of another part. So, really, we can't base an indef off of it in a case of an editor who clearly improves the project. Jennavecia  (Talk)  15:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah........ why are we even discussing indef blocks??? That certainly shouldn't be the conclusion of this case - we're far away from requiring an indef block, and I suspect we will never need to properly consider it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully endorse block. The spirit of the "Sam Korn solution" is very simple: the community does not trust BetaCommand's use of automated tools. That's it. It's impossible to argue that BetaCommand is oblivious to this and the merit of the edits is completely irrelevant here. A legally blind man is not allowed to drive, even if he was just bringing chicken soup to his grandma and didn't run into a tree. And let's cut the crap about automated vs semi-automated (or simi-automated...): BetaCommand has been requested to use the good old method of clicking the edit tab, followed by the preview button, followed by the save page button. This is a very reasonable restriction until he can regain others' trust. Clearly, he doesn't care but what I find most disconcerting is that some still want to defend him. It's not like he's being banned (or indef-blocked, I don't know why this is even being suggested). It's a three-day block, fully in-line with restrictions that were made crystal-clear to him more than once (and in particular by Ryan). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is weak. He was not endangering lives here. So to compare it to a blind man driving... no good. He's been restricted from the use of automated tools. If he was intended to be restricted from using TW or AWB or any other semi-automated tool, then that should have been put in the restrictions and his access to these tools removed. But they weren't. Instead, he gets blocked without previous discussion for what appeared to possibly be automated tool use. Jennavecia  (Talk)  16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the analogy is weak and I do understand he's not actually killing anyone. But the scope of the restrictions has been pointed out to him quite clearly. See this (partial) sequence of diffs    . In the middle of those diffs, BetaCommand says, in essence, that he doesn't accept these restrictions. He's free to do that but he can't complain if he's blocked for violating them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Betacommand should be unblocked. Sanction states automated not automated and semi-automated. He made an error yes but it's fixable. Bidgee (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the diffs just above. The message to him was loud and clear. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To say the restrictions are crystal clear is laughable. It states automated, not semi-automated. If he's not allowed to run Twinkle, that needs to be added to the restrictions and it needs to be removed from his monobook. That simple. It's not crystal clear. It's ambiguous at best. Stating otherwise repeatedly doesn't change it. Jennavecia  (Talk)  17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statement. The user who added the information to the ArbCom decision misinterpreted the consensus by adding "appearance of automatic" to the restrictions, which don't appear on the community sanctions. The community was clear, but it was muddied by people who didn't get it or people who were pursuing their own agenda. That agenda is getting clearer by reading this thread; it appears that people are waiting for Betacommand to screw up so they can be rid of him. Yes, he makes big mistakes, but as far as I can tell Wikipedia still lives and he's still a valued contributer. "But he makes big big mistakes!" Then you mine as well just shut off the register button. Is he a bit arrogant? Yes, but so are 99% of active users (some have egos that could literally fill stadiums). He was removing links to a deleted article. There was no need to call in the Calvary. -Royalguard11 (T) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanction failed
The so called community sanction on beta failed to stipulate these actions. If he was not allowed to use twinkle or AWB (hes still listed for AWB, and not one of his js subpages have been removed or taken from him), it should have been removed from him according to that consensus. Seeing as it wasn't, a block based on his actions of semi-automated tools is clearly not appropriate. This was a mistake anyone could have made. But what did Beta do? He asked an admin to revert it so he could correct it.  Syn  ergy 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * erm, what doesn't he get about "You are prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated)" - this clearly looks automated, and I strongly dispute any claims that what he was doing wasn't tangible to fully automated.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I could easily conduct 40 edits in a minute without using any tool whatsoever but my keyboard. Does that make me a bot or automated tool? Beta was acting within his restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)They look automated. A high edit-frequency combined with repetitive edit-summaries = a hallmark of automated editing. While it may not be (depending on whether Beta exercised due discretion before clicking Y to each edit - which given the edits-per-minute count, seems highly unlikely) automated, it certainly appears so, and the "injunction" specifically encompasses such edits. Very clearly, as it happens. ¦- Treasury § Tag ? contribs -¦ 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on this case, but would you mind showing me how to conduct 40 (productive) edits in a minute without using any tool whatsoever except a keyboard? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just open 40 windows on 40 different article, make a productive edit on each and then click save on each of those 40 windows as fast as you can. You might be able to get all 40 in one minute if you're quick. Useight (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, using control-tab (in iceweasel at least), and, having the cursor on the edit summary box on each one, it's just a matter of hitting a shift-enter combo about 40 times. SQL Query me!  18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But we've seen the screenshot of the tool he was using! We know he was using a tool, where all he had to press was "y" to make each edit. I doubt any thought went into the edits, just a constant clicking of y - that's just about automated in my eyes.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if he was pressing 'y' for each edit, that is not fully automated. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the spriit of the ruling was to prevent these sorts of unreviewed mass edits. Arguing about whether the tool is "automated" or "semi-automated" misses the mark, in my opinion.  The result is the same.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if he wasn't specifically prohibited from making semi-automated edits. It's completely relevant here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were in a courtroom, I'd agree with you. But we're on Wikipedia where the spirit is more important than the literal wording.  Looking for loopholes and gaming systems in order to get around restrictions is not acceptable here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a loophole, its common sense. His community sanction discussion should have been more specific, and if that had happened, we might not be having this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Man. It's like when I was a kid and I would tell my brother not to touch me and he stuck his hand a millimeter my face and said "I'm not touching you!"  Now sure, I could have chosen my words more carefully.  But that doesn't justify the behavior of a person who deliberately flaunts the intent of the directive.   -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make a comment here, completely irrelevant to the header above, but it looks like two different tools were used. I had a hard time understanding this, but from what it appears betacommand tried to use the unlink function on WP:TWINKLE, which preformed a different action then he expected. (it unlinked the article from all other articles). These were automatic edits, but probably not what he was intending to do. As a result he (correctly) requested an admin to revert the changes. After that he used his semi-automatic tool to do the changes correctly, and from what I can see, the semi-automatic tool's changes were correct and are still the top revisions as I speak now. Take what you will, but I don't think betacommand had any intent to do those first 200 some edits. This is intended merely as a summary of confusing events above. ——  nix eagle  16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, after going over them, that sounds about right to me too. It does sound AWFUL close to using an automated tool to do it to me, but, it's entirely possible he checked over the changes BEFORE he started, in reference to whomever above or below said he couldn't have possibly checked the changes. I'm still waiting to hear what damage Betacommand has done here today, other than causing someone else to make a whole lotta ANI drama. SQL Query me!  18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no damage. More than 14 hours after the edits were done, and not ONE of them has been undone. This smacks to me of someone spilling a bunch of milk, Betacommand swooping in and using a tool to clean it up, and the lynch mob calling for his head on a pike because OH MY GOD HE DID SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE PROJECT WITH A __TOOL__???? HANG HIM! HANG HIM NOW! Unreal. Get some perspective people. What Betacommand did was good for the project. Show some harm from what he did THEN talk about how long the noose needs to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, my point is that this was a failure to impose the sanction with respect to twinkle. I'm not blaming anyone. But you can't hold this against Beta, when no one removed his ability to use these functions.  Syn  ergy 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I endorse the block. Yes, he had to confirm each edit, but there's a level at which assisted manual edits becomes indistinguishable with droning/botting - and Beta went past it. Besides, he was removing redlinks. Yes, it's good, but the world won't end if he doesn't do it; unlike his bot, anyone can delink articles. Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread is [redacted] depressing
--barneca (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are possible extenuating explanations for how this happened (which, I admit, I don't know enough about to know whether they're reasonable explanations or not) being discussed after the block, rather than before the block?
 * Does it seem to anybody else like this thread isn't so much a conversation, as it is people sequentially yelling their opinion on the subject, with their hands over their ears so they don't have to listen to anyone else?
 * Aren't most of the comments above either the usual knee-jerk Betacommand-hating suspects coming out of the woodwork to say the same tired things, or the usual knee-jerk Betacommand-apologists coming out of the woodwork to say the same tired things?
 * Does it seem to anybody else like there's so much noise in all the babble that the signal (from the comments coming from non-knee-jerk editors) can't get through?
 * The most depressing thing is that this kind of thread ("I have performed a controversial action without discussion, and invite comment after the fact." "Great block!" "Horrible block!" "Great block!" "Horrible block!"  "Great block!" "Horrible block!".....) seems pretty common.
 * I have a new working theory that no thread on ANI that's over one screen long, or that has more than 4 people commenting, is ever useful.
 * Fantasy-land utopian description of how I wish this had gone (and there is blame on both sides that it didn't go this way):
 * Viridae: Um, BC, you just did a whole bunch of edits that look automated, which you aren't supposed to do.
 * BC: What? Those weren't automated, they were semi-automated.
 * V: I think they violate the agreement, tho.
 * BC: I disagree. I'll stop them while we ask at ANI, AE, or somewhere else.
 * V: OK, great, thanks.
 * (V and BC open a discussion somewhere to settle the issue)
 * (Everyone lives happily ever after. The End.)
 * Nods. But this is the first time I've come into this situation.  Syn  ergy 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I stay away from replying here. Well said.  --Kbdank71 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But look at the bright side of things: there has yet to be a debate on whether or not Viridiae or anyone else is "involved" or "uninvolved". In any case, I think it's a pretty innocuous block. Editor told "don't do this" goes out and does. Editor blocked for fairly short time. Everyone lives happily ever after. The End. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do tend to agree regarding the length and contribution to ANI threads... there seems to be a new improved wikidrama here every time I look. It's scary just how many admins never come to Administrators' Noticeboard and its incidents subpage because it's so consistently C-grade theatre rather than problem-solving. Orderinchaos 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Barneca BC doesn't need warning - he has had sufficent of that. He knew he was under a sanctuion, he broke it, he deals with the consequences. Viridae Talk 07:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the general level of support for the block, I've declined Betacommand's unblock request. In my personal opinion, this ban is poorly described. We either ought to clearly decide Betacommand is banned from semi-automated tools, or he's banned only from fully-automated ones, because this business about edits that "appear" to be automated leaves too much room for interpretation. Mango juice talk 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we could always define an Edits Per Minute rate = an Automated Tool. I personally have found it hard to get over 10EPM using a tool like AWB, and even those with very fast connections report rates above 20EPM as rare.  MBisanz  talk 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just indicate that he must review each edit. I think that would be more effective at achieving the goal of the restriction than some arbitrary number of edits per minute.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that in this case, he did "review" each edit in some sense. Do you mean he would be required to preview each edit?  Mango juice talk 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that what is meant here is "review" as in, look it over and consider it and ensure its accuracy, rather than "I looked at it". I simply cannot accept that anyone can give substantial thought to an edit in the time span above. Shereth 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not sure what the difference is, but sure. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What about we add something like "Betacommand is required to review all semi-automated edits he makes" to his sanction? When he makes more than 200 edits that need to be reverted, he clearly did not review those edits. --Conti|? 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This nonsense over "fully-automated" vs "semi-automated" is some of the best wikilawyering I've seen in quite some time. Beta's restriction prohibits his use of automated tools. Whether semi or full, automated is automated. When somebody is prohibited from doing something by community restrictions, the proper response to violating those restrictions is a block. The proper response is not to open the 1000th discussion on Beta's actions. Good block. - auburn pilot   talk  17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole thing is ridiculous. He knows damn well what he wasn't supposed to do. The wikilawyering over "semi-automated vs. fully-automated" is pure semantics. I remember the discussion that led to the "Sam Korn Solution" being adopted, and the consensus message was REAL clear. Beta just seems to have an amazingly strong (and frankly baffling) long-time obsession with making automated edits via whatever method he can. Unfortunately, they've inevitably done nothing but create trouble and controversy every time, and yet he keeps coming back. Over and over and over again. For years and years. We tell him his bot is broken, he says "No it's not", we tell him it's broken again, he says "Ok, I fixed it", he causes chaos, he says "Everyone's overreacting", we take away his bot-rights, and he switches over to rapid-fire Twinkle. I like Beta and I truly believe his heart is in the right place, but he either does not understand or is too obsessed to care what the community has told him repeatedly. The whole problem would go away overnight if he wanted it to, but he just can't keep his damn hand out of the cookie jar. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 18:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assessment sounds about accurate to me, too, which brings me to the conclusion that this block is nothing short of a punishment. I've been thinking for a while now, about what this could possibly be to prevent, and, all I can come up with is "Betacommand editing". SQL Query me!  18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer is that there is a bright line that was created by the restriction, and that bright line would have no teeth unless it was enforced by the threat of blocking. If we don't actually enforce the restriction, we might as well not have it.  The block has to be considered part of the restriction, not as a punishment in and of itself.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, we're going with "To prevent Betacommand from editing" then? I do not see where he was doing harm, outside of the initial mistake. This is starting to appear more and more like it's just a block for blocking's sake. SQL Query me!  19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The block is to enforce the remedy, which is intended to prevent Betacommand from using automated tools, which he has been demonstrated to have abused.  If you believe the remedy is effective and necessary, you need to have this block.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "nonsense" and "wikilawyering" - it's part of the policy on bots. This very issue was brought up when the Korn solution was proposed, and people chose not to listen to BAG members who knew how the terminology would be understood by the bot community, including Beta. On the point itself, Beta claims he intended to do one test edit with Twinkle and something went wrong, generating 217 edits which also happened to be bad edits. Beta's edits happened at 05:55-05:56, and the reverts by 718 Bot were at 07:00-07:05, just over an hour later. If that scenario happened to me, I would think "oops!" and start undoing the edits immediately. Gimmetrow 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of us who aren't in the know, could you explain how 1 test edit can somehow become 217 edits? I don't really get that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because, if he reverted them, some trigger-happy admin would see a clearer golden opportunity, and block his ass. Then again, the fifty plus edits per min that came around afterwards kinda blows that out of the water. SQL Query me!  18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If Beta is using a modified version of Twinkle's de-linking function, or something similar, it wouldn't be too difficult to rack up an absurd number of edits in mere seconds. See Cyanoa Crylate's contribs for how this is abused by vandals. - auburn pilot   talk  18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does how TW can be abused by vandals have to do with this situation? Beta's not a vandal? He wasn't abusing TW? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SQL, I think it's time you reread Chunky Rice's comment. You know, the one right above your comment. - auburn pilot   talk  20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bad block - where's the good faith assumptions? Are people contending that Betacommand was attempting to disrupt Wikipedia? Kelly  hi! 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they are contending that he violated an editing prohibition that he has been placed under. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No one assumes good faith where Betacommand is concerned because, quite frankly, he should know better by now. I'm not suprised to see Betacommand cheerleaders popping up at the merest suggestion of any form of punishment towards him, as usual. *sigh* Jtrainor (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand cheerleader? I'm not seeing any indication he was abusing bots here, no matter how this is spun. People who have histories with Betacommand should leave him alone instead of watching his every move - if he does something wrong, let an uninvolved party tackle it. Kelly  hi! 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. No one is making any accusations of abusing automated tools, but the community prohibition is on using automated tools, not abusing them.  I'm certain his intentions were good but he is specifically prohibited from doing so, and has violated that prohibitin. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's only Twinkle, then it's not an automated tool. Kelly  hi! 19:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument being made is that the prohibition includes "semi-automated" edits like the ones in question. Perhaps some clarification is needed, but either way it's a minor technicality and there's no reason to be wikilawyering loopholes. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kelly: "if he does something wrong, let an uninvolved party tackle it." - heh, amusing. I'll be impressed if you can find an uninvolved party - strikes me that most of the Wiki community is involved when it comes to Beta. Talk Islander 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that Betacommand is abusing automated tools, it's that when he uses automated tools, it occasionally results in bulk fuckups like the 217 Twinkle-powered delinks that are part of this mess. --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
Since a lot of the arguing going on is centered on the distinction between "automated" and "semi-automated" tools and is leading to a lot of silly bickering and getting bogged down in semantics, why not move toward a compromise to shut this issue down before it gets uglier?

Given the following :


 * No one is really accusing Betacommand of being malicious or abusive or disruptive
 * The community prohibition does not explicitly state semi-automated and there is room for interpretation
 * The spirit of the prohibition is meant to include semi-automated edits

I propose that the current block on Betacommand be lifted as a "technical misunderstanding", but that the wording of the ban be modified to indicate that the use of a "semi-automated" tool such as Twinkle to make rapid-fire edits is also prohibited. It should be understood by Betacommand, as well as those intending to enforce the prohibition, that the intention of the ban is not to prohibit the use of tools per se, but that the intention is to enforce a thoughtful review of each and every edit before it is performed. As such, any edits that appear to be automated, inasmuch as they are generally considered to be too quick and successive to allow for any measure of thoughtful consideration prior to committing, should be considered a violation of the prohibition and subject to a block as stipulated previously.

What say you all? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing the wording of the restriction is a good idea. Lifting the block is not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that many people are arguing that Betacommand's tool was not automated because it was "semi-automated". Well, I think that is purely semantics. IMO, fully automated and semi-automated are just two different types of automated tool, and the spirit of the community sanction discussion was that the prohibition included all automated tools, full or semi. At least that's what I had in mind when I voted for the sanction. It saddens me that it's necessary, but I'd support formally specifying that the sanction applies to all automatic tools, and that the only allowed method of editing should be clicking the edit tab, making changes in the edit box and clicking "Save page". I don't really have a lot of sympathy for Betacommand in this case: given the numerous crystal clear warnings he was given, and the rapid pace at which he made edits, he should had understood that using an automated tool was not OK just because he pressed the "y" button a number of times equal to the number of articles edited. At the very least, he should have asked for a clarification first. Instead, he repeated the very same behaviour that led to the sanction in the first place: just starting a script run without asking anyone. IMO, the block was correct and in no way a misunderstanding. However, since blocks are preventative and not punitive, I'd support an unblock on the express condition that Betacommand expressly commits himself to making edits only through the edit tab, and that the community sanction is clarified to that effect. Is he back? (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with that though I think preventing him from using, say, Twinkle is unnecessary. Now using his modified version of Twinkle or "testing Twinkle" is a problem because the restriction was put in place in part because BC screwed up fairly regularly as a programmer (and in part because of abuse). I don't mind seeing TW edit summaries in his contribs. In any case, what is really needed here is clear language for the restrictions. I believe that this should make clear that edits such as the ones being discussed now fall under those restrictions. As I said earlier, the spirit of the original restriction was "BetaCommand is requested to use the good old method of clicking the edit tab, followed by the preview button, followed by the save page button." But clearly, it's ok if he reverts vandalism with a script. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we simply cut it down to; "You are only permitted to make edits that are clearly manual, and in any event are less X per minute." While there may be debate on whether BC acts in the best interests of the community, although seriously there can be no argument that is the intent, it has to be realised that for someone with such a desire to automate the editing process they have an unfortunate habit of making poor decisions resulting in very many edits being needed to be reverted/repaired - and that this is a recurring problem. How many times does even the best faith editor need to be sanctioned/brought up before the community again before we take away the tools that keep being used badly, and ask the editor to apply their energies in another manner? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with this version. Viridae Talk 21:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to this, but it should be "X in any single minute" or something. Otherwise we may get "sure, there were 50 edits that minute, but there were none for the five minutes before". Franamax (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is fair. Jennavecia  (Talk)  23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He has had plenty of chances. Keep him blocked. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support The bad outweighs the good here. Whatever he's blocked for, he is still pushing an interpretation of his own that is questionable, and has persisted in doing so, without going to the root of the issue, which is the policy in question. Blind faith is still blind, whatever the mechanics, and numerous blocks, even discounting the dubious ones, do not seem to be moving his mindset forwards, or er, in any particular direction. If we need bots, let's have them, but let's have non-human ones. -- Rodhull andemu  00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which section to put this in, so it can go here. The evidence suggests that the tool was semi-automated. It required confirmation for every edit (the "pressing y" as people refer to above) and it showed changes which each edit is causing (which some users above, again, seem to helpfully overlook on the screenshot on BC's page). You see the little red "-"s, and the green "+"s? Those are the changes, in a diff format. The bits with a red "-" next to them are being removed, and those with a green "+" are being added. Thus he was checking his changes by looking at the changes to the wikiscript (and if using a graphical preview is the crime being cited here, I think we're all guilty). I'd suggest that betacommand hasn't violated the word of his community "ban", and it would be hard to enforce anything under the "spirit" of it, given its controversy and the drama surrounding the whole issue. My suggestion would be to caution betacommand not to run bot tasks on his own account, semi-automated or not (not precluding vandalism fighting and what have you, of course), and to remove the block at some point. That's only my 2p though and I'm not particularly attached to the idea. Martinp23 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, it seems no more automated than AWB is, in "normal mode". Martinp23 01:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at Beta's screenshot, first says " Changing page Jersey Joe Walcott, then Beta approves five edits, then it says Changing page Riddick Bowe . The changes to those two pages are part of a run in which there are in excess of 30 edits per minute - so less than two seconds between edits. So Betacommand must have spent less than two seconds reviewing five edits. How can you say that's semi automated? A bot performing edits automatically is just the same as a human automatically pressing the "y" button. Besides, his edits also made quite some formatting changes besides those displayed, and Beta said "I dont bother to look at [them] because I know they are correct and dont mess things up". So weren't those formatting edits made automatically? The spirit of the community restriction was quite clear, according to the ANI thread and the notifications given to Betacommand – this was precisely what they were intended to prohibit. Beta is now arguing on a semantic level, but even that requires quite a leap of faith to accept (I don't recall anything about the sanction saying "Betacommand is prohibited from using automatic editing tools, except if he knows the edits are correct and don't mess thing up"). Is he back? (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take much time to look at a diff which is supposed to be removing a link in a bulleted list. It either looks like

- * List of male boxers
 * and you hit "y", or it doesn't and you hit "n". I thought the complaint here was about the initial 217 twinkle edits? Gimmetrow 11:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I pretty much tell that you didn't look at any of the diffs before posting this. This is the last diff before blocking, and the others are all pretty similar. You can't be seriously telling me that you could look at that diff and approve it in less than a second! The problem is that Betacommand isn't checking his edits, and it strains all of our credibility to say that he is actually looking at every diff. I can't say how long I would need as a minimum for such an edit, but load+check+approve in 1 second of an edit where 10 sections of a file are touched is just not possible. AKAF (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's like running a program in debug mode and blindly hitting "return" for each loop. There's no practical difference between that so-called "semi-automatic" mode and "automatic" mode. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he back? was referring to Beta's screenshot. Beta was editing to remove a link in a see-also section. He's only reviewing that edit. If that edit is approved, his script apparently also does a bunch of other things comparable to AWB's "general fixes". Why exactly is that a problem? Gimmetrow 12:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he's not supposed to be doing either automated work or work that "looks automated", which this does. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So in your interpretation, the "Sam Korn solution" barred Beta from using AWB or Twinkle, or any use of pywikipedia? Gimmetrow 12:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sanction forbids the use of work that "looks" automated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive146. The terms of the proposal was Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking, and the topnote summary has He is banned from using an automated program to make edits. Nothing about "looks automated". Gimmetrow 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's near the end of this section: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you can mess up an article with such "general fixes". Sure, the chances are very low, but when you do a couple of hundred edits, it is almost inevitable that you have to fix one or two or three "general fixes" by hand afterwards. And that's why you have to check all those edits. --Conti|? 12:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, usually the AWB developers remove anything from "general fixes" that causes occasional problems. There seems to be little support for censuring AWB users who don't check the normally non-controversial "fixes". Heck, there's little support for censuring the editors who make up their own incorrect "fixes". Gimmetrow 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's perfect, and neither are AWB's "general fixes". Actually, they're pretty good, and they do just what they're supposed to do in maybe 99,5% of the cases. But that doesn't stop mistakes from happening, and whenever I did disambiguation work with AWB, there were usually one or two edits that needed to be fixed afterwards. If I wouldn't have looked at every edit I made, I wouldn't have found those mistakes (or a bug that got fixed swiftly). Luckily, AWB automatically shows all changes before you apply an edit, and I just hope that's true for Twinkle as well. If you don't check the edits you make, you either should get yourself a bot (and know very, very well what you're doing), or don't make those edits at all. --Conti|? 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Right - let's get things back on track. I'd like to make a formal proposal here, taken from up above;

'' is placed under a community restriction. He is prohibited from using fully automated tools to make edits. Furthermore, his edit rate must not exceed 10 edits per minute. Should he go above this rate, or make any edits that are obviously automated, he may be blocked for up to one week by any uninvoled administrator.''

Hopefully this will reduce any ambiguety.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, sounds ok though the second sentence should start with "Furthermore". I am open to tweaks if that gets more people on board: what we really need is to have something clear enough that a subsequent block will not be accompanied by 50kb threads. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed - thanks Pascal.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Obviously automated"? It seems that it's not obvious either way for a lot of people (see above), and you again introduce ambiguity as to semi/fully.  (might also be worth citing WP:BOT as policy, if it describes the distinction (I think it may...)). Martinp23 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:BOT even describes what obviously automated is, I know Werdna used to have some tool for checking is a sequence of edits fit the bot pattern, but maybe just the 10EPM limit, otherwise, good proposal.  MBisanz  talk 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the distinction between semi/automated (sorry if we're on a different wavelength, I may be confused). Martinp23 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was thinking the "obviously automated" end, but even the semi/auto end is rather ill defined (there might be something in WP:B, but it is still unclear). I'd be happy with just a straight EPM limit at this point, with the understanding that if he's editing for 59 minutes straight at 9EPM every minute, that isn't acceptable.  MBisanz  talk 02:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I make one tiny suggestion, as crappy as it is? For each such block that "sticks", can we increase the length each time a tiny bit? 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4, 5, 6, etc.? Or else every month this will just come up again and again as it has forever. rootology  ( T ) 01:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As someone (judging by a comment above, perhaps a very rare someone) who's both experienced but never been involved in anything involved Betacommand, I would suggest that ten is perhaps too low of a limit. From all I've read, it seems that Beta's edits are generally small edits that can be done quickly by a human, perhaps faster than one per six seconds: I myself make many small edits (never using even semiautomated processes), copypasting the relevant text in many tabs and then hitting "save page" in each window rapidly.  What if Beta wants to do this with, say, fifteen pages: he'd have to stop after ten and wait a minute.  Without attempting to get into the question of the propriety of Betacommand using any automated or semiautomated tools, I think that the proposal should be furthermore :-) changed in two ways: (1) Change "uninvoled" to "uninvolved", and (2) "10 edits" to "15 edits": it wouldn't be that much of a problem, and it would reduce potential problems from fast little edits such as I described.  Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I oppose any sanction that only prohibits "fully automatic" tools. As we just saw, banning only fully automatic tools will lead to endless wikilawyering about where the limit between semi-automated and fully automatic goes. How many seconds must be spent reviewing changes before pressing "y" etc. etc. etc. I would instead support the following proposal:
 *  is placed under a community restriction. He is prohibited from using any automated or semi-automated tools to make edits. However, specific exemptions may be granted for semi-automatic tools, provided that his edit rate does not exceed 10 edits per minute. In that case, Betacommand will have to make a request at WP:ANI indicating specifically which tasks he wants to perform, and which semi-automatic tool will be used, and there must be clear community consensus for running the task. Should Betacommand make any edits in violation of these restrictions, he may be blocked for up to one week by any uninvoled administrator.


 * This proposal is very clear without any loopholes that will create huge discussions when Betacommand violates the restriction. However, it leaves him the option of running semi-automated tools with proper discussion in advance - this will allow him to perform uncontroversial tasks, and also give him an opportunity to show that he can use these tools responsibly on a small scale. Is he back? (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I predict wording like that would lead to a dispute over whether a series of edits was really done with semi-automatic tools, or was just repetitive editing with browser tabs. Giving him an outlet for script work is important, though. My proposal is along these lines:
 * Beta may not make any automated/semi-automated/script-assisted/tabbed/vaguely-looks-scripted edits from the Betacommand account, but only from the Betacommandbot account, which is therefore unblocked. He's allowed up to 20 edits to test and debug a scripted task on the Betacommandbot account, but anything beyond 20 auto/semi-auto/assisted edits requires approval through AN/I. Any script assisted edits on the Betacommand account, or anything more than 20 edits on the Betacommandbot account without task-specific approval, results in escalating blocks on both accounts, starting at 3 days.
 * Trying to cover a few more loopholes while giving Beta room to do some script work. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - since when was the unblocking of BCB discussed? Talk Islander 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Is he back?'s proposal - this version is crystal clear, without any obvious loopholes (though one will be found, I can guarentee that...). It also allows the possibility for Beta to do some useful scripted work, but only with the community's approval. Talk Islander 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as Gimmetrow pointed out, there is the "tabbed browsing loophole", which has in fact been used earlier. So perhaps something should be added to the effect of "Furthermore, Betacommand may not use any method, manual or otherwise, that submits several pre-prepared edits in bulk" – just to close all loopholes, since they will be found, I assure you. Is he back? (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I suggest a simple 30-day block for violating the restriction against automated or semi-automated editing. Every time Betacommand runs another software-assisted bulk edit, others have to check over all his edits and fix the bugs, which is a drain on the project.  --John Nagle (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained above, there was no straightforward restriction on semi-automated editing. Note that when the "Sam Korn solution" was proposed, another proposal was already on the table which did address semi-automated editing, so people were (or should have been) aware of the distinction. Gimmetrow 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Generally, when we have editors who ruleslawyer in this way, we don't bother trying to close all the loopholes. We simply make it clear that they can stop lawyering, or they can be shown the door.  Friday (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I think we can close this discussion and go with Ryan's formulation: it has sufficient support as a compromise so there's not much to gain by letting the thread go on and on. Although some would prefer tougher restrictions (or BC's head), I don't see a strong support for that, either here or in previous ANI threads. In any case, I think it's unreasonable to throw BC off the project and I'm confident this is the overwhelming view. On the other hand, it's fair to say that Ryan's proposal has the support of (at least) Shereth, Ed Fitzgerald, Is he back, Viridae, Franamax, Jennavecia, Rodhullandemu, rootology, MBisanz, Nyttend, Gimmetrow, Islander, Friday, Sam Korn, Ryan and myself. I also believe that the idea here is to remove any ambiguity in the "Sam Korn solution" which also had wide support at the time. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Disagree that there's consensus.  I would approve of Ryan's proposal as long as it doesn't replace the existing restriction against edits which are automated or appear to be automated.

Again another off topic note by myself. I want to make sure all involved understand the chain of events. You can see my initial summery above. What happened is this: Betacommand tried the unlink function on WP:TWINKLE, which for all intents and purposes is an automated edit. I don't think he realized that is what it was when he did it (I can't read his mind though), but if he did not realize that is what it did, he failed to read the manual on twinkle. In short the twinkle actions were fully automatic for all intents and purposes. It is debatable if he intended to actually do those edits though.

After the first set of edits by twinkle were undone by an admin, betacommand went on to use his own tool. This tool can be argued to be semi-automatic. It showed a diff of all major changes it was making to the article, and betacommand simply confirmed that it was not removing the wrong text. This is the software shown in the screenshot on betacommand's talk page. As far as I know (and at the time I have checked) these edits are still the top revisions on the affected articles. Nobody has undone the edits by betacommand here.

In light of that, any remedy should keep in mind that betacommand's edits are generally helpful, when he uses "semi-automated" tools. Editing speed is not so much the issue, as the fact that he is actually reviewing the changing he does. My suggestion is to make it very clear that no automatic editing of any type is permitted, including those from popular javascript tools. You can define automatic as any tool that does not request input from the operator before commiting the save on each article in the list. (the delink button on twinkle fits this definition). Cheers folks ——  nix eagle  20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also do not agree that there's consensus for Ryan's proposal. In particular, I do not support it, even though I'm listed in Pascal Tesson's list. I do not agree with any proposal that makes a distinction between fully automated and semi-automated edits. As we have just seen, that is just a recipe for rules lawyering. I support a restriction that encompasses both fully automated and semi-automated edits. Is he back? (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree with what I have said above? Have I messed up the basics of this incident, or what? You seem to dislike the idea of him operating any scripts, and you are accusing folks of "wikilawyering" I think both sides above can be accused of that ;). As I have stated the semi-automated edits by betacommand (the tool that he pushed 'y' on after seeing it list the changes) are still the top revisions. I'm assuming by that that they are good edits. If I'm wrong I'd like to know. I will say straight out that by using twinkle's automated unlink function he violated the original community resolution, but his subsequent actions using the second script seem to be alright. If it were not, those edits would have been undone by now. ——  nix eagle  02:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I also do not like the distinction between semi and fully automated being used in this context. An automation is something that is left unattended. BC's twinkle bulk fuckup was something any twinkle user could have done. I have done similar twinkle fuck ups and watched in horror as twinkle tells me all the additional articles it is changing because I told it to when I seriously wish I hadnt and desperately wanted to tell it to stop. Shit happens. So long as Betacommand is sitting at the terminal watching in horror at the mistake his has done, I'm fine with letting him use the tools that the rest of us use.

It is BC's unattended bots which have been the cause of a lot history of grief, usually due to changes to the algorithms of an approved bot, which in turn meant it was running without renewed community approval. The wording should be clear that it is unattended editing which is unacceptable. He is prohibited from running automatons; he isnt allowed to leave his terminal while he is editing. He needs to review and approve every edit, just like the rest of us. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
This is ridiculous. As far as I can understand from this ANI report, BC made one wrong button press. Twinkle does go off and do a whole bunch of edits as a result of a single button press, and it doesnt give the editor a preview of the changes that will happen. It should, but it doesnt. One bad action, that has been fixed, and we have a block and all this discussion? Whats going on! John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, this is ridiculous, but not quite for the reasons you say. People on WP are blocked for "disruption" for minor behavioral transgressions all the time, but Betacommand, who is possibly  the most disruptive non-vandal on Wikipedia gets chance after chance after chance after chance.  There really must come a point when one has to say that it doesn't matter how useful he is, no matter that his motivations might be as pure as snow, whether or not he is being unfairly dealt with, having Betacommand continue to edit is extremely disruptive to Wikipedia. Now I would never propose that he be banned, even if I thought it was the best things that could happen, because the disruption that would cause would itself be harmful, but it does seem necessary to decrease his disruptive potential by making absolutely sure that he can only edit Wikpedia manually without the use of any bots, scripts, automation, gadgets, trinkets, doodahs or whatchamacallits. He's got to do it by hand, period.  The language of any proposal needs to make that abundantly clear, so I'd recommend that efforts to make the proposal succinct be abandoned.  Use as many sentences and words as necessary to make sure that there's no chance of anyone misunderstanding, and no loopholes for wikilawyering through. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this one edit extremely disruptive? It was a single bad action, and the mess was quickly cleaned up.  This block and ensuing discussion is more disruptive than the BC edit.  He is currently blocked, and your comment is wikilawyering to keep him banned, because the community has not objected to him using all of those tools.
 * I have waited for someone to indicate that my assessment is incorrect, and none has come forward, so I have unblocked Betacommand.
 * If there is a communal agreement that he shouldnt use any tools, the adjusted wording can be devised while he is unblocked just as easily as when he is blocked. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the above discussion or those reaons that unblock request has been denied? There was SIGNIFICANT support for that block remaining in place - why do you think your opinion is bigger better and more important than that of the rest of the peple who have commented on this issue? Viridae Talk 04:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the sanction I linked when i blocked him...? Viridae Talk 04:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the above, and was involved in the prior sanction discussion. I dont see consensus above that the block was good.  I see people saying it is depressing that a block was handed out over a mistake.  I see people discussing whether it was covered by the sanction or not, a discussion which should have been had prior to the block.  I also see people foaming about indef blocks and over-exaggeration of what BC edits have been brought to ANI as the basis of a block.  I see one person who denied the unblock request, but I disagree with the block, which is how we define a community sanction.  If someone else wants to block again with full knowledge of the information that has come to light since the block, I will not dispute their action. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there were two admins who denied the unblock request, but Betacommand didn't accept the first. --Conti|? 11:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is significant support for the block, there is certainly not consensus for its removal. Reverse your actions. Viridae Talk 04:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend, John, that you immediately reblock for the duration of the original block. This is entirely against consensus above, and disrespectful of the views of everyone who has weighed in suggesting that the block continue. The section above is an active discussion intending to determine how best to reformat the sanctions, but nowhere is there any indication of a consensus to unblock, whatsoever. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see consensus for a block. I apologise to anyone who feels slighted by my unblock; I hope that if they read my assessment of the situation, they will see that a more clear description of the events has been provided since the initial ANI report.  If an admin believe I have acted in error, they are welcome to reblock BC.  If the community believes I have acted in error, and say so here in volume, I will initiate a RFC on myself if they dont take me to arbcom first.
 * The active discussion is about clarification of the community sanction, which doesnt require that Betacommand be blocked. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion start: 02:17. "I have waited for someone to indicate that my assessment is incorrect, and none has come forward, so I have unblocked Betacommand.": 04:03. Wait time by : 1 hour 46 minutes. A longer wait, say 24 hours, might have been appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 72 hour block would be almost expired after a 24 hour wait. The 72 hour block was in effect reduced down to a 44 hour block - almost two thirds of the block was served for a single incorrect button press that was fixed prior to the block, and the button press in question is not even clearly within the community sanction, and very few are saying he shouldnt be using twinkle at all.  Very punitive in my opinion. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * John you are quite mistaken. As stated in the block log, and above - he was not blocked for a single mistaken button press, he was blocked for a series of edits which are in direct violation of the community sanction under which he he was placed. Sam Korn himself (the person who proposed this version of the sanction) has said this is exactly the thing BC is not allowed to do under it. Now, you should correct your mistake and reblock. Or, if you have no objections to anyone redoing it, i will do so myself. Viridae Talk 08:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead Viridae, that is if you want to endanger your tools by wheelwarring. If there is consensus someone else will do won't they? Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse you? I was waiting for his response, if he really thinks that anyone can redo it, then does that include me. I so far haven't seen any support for his remova;l, which was in direct violationof the consensus in the discussion above and the denied unblock request, and based on overturning a block for a block reason that wasn't actually given. Viridae Talk 08:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it does not include you. That would be wheel warring to enforce your own block; a block which in my opinion was (at best) suitable at the time because he was editing at a rapid rate, and you had thought that semi-automated was part and parcel of the community sanction.  However the conclusion of the community sanction reads "He is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account. He is also placed on a civility parole, and any edited seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of the restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week."  It became clear early on in this discussion that he was not using an automated program for neither the twinkle bulk fuckup, nor the manually operated editing that happened afterwards.  He was operating a tool, and when it fucked up, he ensured it was fixed.  When you learned the details of this, you should have undone the block, or at least sought to by asking him to not run any tools until such time as the community discussion was complete.  The wiki was not in an danger, as he was not editing outside what he thought the community sanction entailed.  The community left many of his tools in his hands (he is on the AWB list and his JavaScript is still in place), and he has been using them without much fuss, so it is not hard to understand that some of us are a bit bloody surprised that people are calling for a noose because he pressed the wrong button once.
 * What is more, you seem to be blinded by the righteousness of your own block, because many sufficiently uninvolved people have quite definitely said "bad block". It was your block; you should be listening to these people to ensure that the community feels it was warranted.  If you dont believe me, I will fetch the diffs for you.  You should not be trying to keep him blocked just because there is "support" for your block, especially when the basis for the original block was shakey at best. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The community left many of his tools in his hands (he is on the AWB list and his JavaScript is still in place), and he has been using them without much fuss, so it is not hard to understand that some of us are a bit bloody surprised that people are calling for a noose because he pressed the wrong button once.


 * What is more, you seem to be blinded by the righteousness of your own block, because many sufficiently uninvolved people have quite definitely said "bad block".


 * I think dramatic hyperbole like this is far too effective by those who use it here, unfortunately. Using phrases like "calling for a noose" and "blinded by righteousness" seems like an attempt to ridicule other editor's legitimate complaints. Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually John, the vast majority of people who have commented have said "good block". For the last time, I did not block him because he pushed a couple of buttons properly, i blocked him because he shouldnt have been using tools such as that in in way shape or form, in direct violation of the community sanction. YOur unblock has been completely condemned - only you and BC support it - does that say something to you? Viridae Talk 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If he is going to be allowed to continue editing here (and I'm not sure he should), I agree with Ed that he should be required to make all his edits manually. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If my understanding of the facts is correct, I disagree with this unblock and continue to endorse the original block. I am not overly bothered about the Twinkle matter -- mistakes happen: what was really needed was a speedy explanation from Betacommand.  On the other hand, there was also use of Pywikipediabot, as evidenced on his talk page.  As far as I can tell, the only way that this was not fully automated was that BC had to press "y" on his keyboard to confirm each revert.  I can only see this as rules-lawyering -- sailing as close as possible to the restrictions.  Whether or not it is in violation of the precise wording of the sanction is, I suppose, open to question.  The spirit of the restriction would plainly have prohibited this fashion of editing.  It seems extraordinary to me to claim that this was reasonable behaviour from Betacommand.  Sam Korn (smoddy)
 * Now why would anyone use Y when ~/` (tilde/grave) key in the corner is easier to tape down, hmm... — CharlotteWebb 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Betacommand put up two unblock requests on his talk page. I declined, saying that the discussion was taking place on ANI about the block. BC reverted this with the edit summary: "revert admin with obvious COI" which had me scratching my head but I let it go. A few minutes later, Mangojuice also declined the unblock request. I really have no idea why John would decide to overturn this without any sort of discussion and in spite of overall support for the block above. But hey, people screw up and that's ok. I just think John should acknowledge that his unblock was inappropriate under these circumstances. In any case, the priority is finding an agreement on the wording of BC's editing restrictions so that further blocks are clear-cut enough to avoid these nonsensical threads. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To anyone who wonders why Betacommand continues to act so childish, here we see the answer: because people let him. Is it any wonder he disregards all input from others, and all sanctions?  I thought we were past the "he'll always be unblocked" stage, but apparently not.  You really did a foolish thing here, Jayvdb. Friday (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And here we go again. Betacommand violates the sanctions against him, gets blocked for doing so, an admin unblocks him early against consensus, and the cycle continues because BC takes the unblock as official validation that he didn't do anything wrong by ignoring the sanction, and thus can go ahead and keep doing it.  Will this ever be over?  Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What an utterly shameful act by Jayvdb. There is absolutely no justification for that unblock, other than Jayvdb deciding his personal opinion has more weight than the entire discussion above. Awful. - auburn pilot   talk  17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're all pathetic. His opinion does have more weight than the discussion above.  He made a decision, while you whine and bitch and cry, and do nothing.  If betacommand is bad then enforce the rules against him.  If john did something wrong, then block him.  Stop trying to create empty drama.  The real drama will appear shortly, and end the same way as this has.
 * Well done, John. Pay no attention to these hypocrites. Pure as the driven snow (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello SPA, and welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. GbT/c 18:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't typically respond to people who use single purpose accounts to hide, but your statement "If betacommand is bad then enforce the rules against him." shows how little you understand of this situation. The block did just that: enforced the rules against him. - auburn pilot   talk  18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How long (has this been going on?) :) (The repeated problems with Betacommand's behaviour I mean, not this thread.) <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 21:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What's done is done. I'll just note that it seems like people's patience with BC is getting shorter and shorter. I have enormous respect for John, but somehow I think we'll eventually end up here once again. If he's not using poorly written scripts, he's pushing a ridiculous stance on fair use. His refusal to acknowledge his mistakes and take corrective action will assure this is the case. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He did take corrective action in this case; the block occurred after the mistake had been corrected. (fixup ended: 07:13, 21 August 2008 blocked:09:53, 21 August 2008) I will not be surprised or annoyed if he is reported to ANI again; Betacommand occasionally annoys people and there are always faults in software.  If it doesnt happen to often, it is worth these lengthy discussions to keep him plugged into the project which he so passionately helped us build.  While his methods have at times caused immense pain, he has done truckloads of good. He has done more good for the project that most of us here; both those with stones in their hands and those who are defending him.  I hope that he fucks up less often too, but more importantly I hope that people will assume better faith as time goes on, otherwise this has become an unforgiving place. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Restate and additional
Further to my original wording above and with a caveat, I wish to again propose a community sanction upon Betacommands accounts;"Betacommand is limited to making only clearly manual edits in the Wikipedia mainspace, and in any case not more than X edits in any one minute, except where a test run of edits using semi/automated tools has been performed in a Betacommand sandbox, and has the approval of an admin to be transferred into the mainspace. This sanction shall initially run for X months, when it may be then reviewed and lifted (unless there are continuing valid concerns). Any violation of this sanction, as well as any block enacted, will result in an extension for no less than the period of any block, plus 1 month, plus any other extension agreed by the community." This will prevent BC from creating disruption when one of his edit runs (be it semi or fully automated) falls over again (as he can simply delete the sandbox contents) and it needs the approval of an experienced editor (who will of course be partly responsible for the subsequent edits, which is why I said "administrator" - as this goes with the territory). It also clarifies that anything that isn't clearly manual (which may include Twinkle, where there is the confirmation function) and not approved after sandbox testing is in violation of the sanction. To provide a carrot and stick "punishment/reward" to the sanction, there is an automatic extension of one month (plus the tariff of any block also resulting from the violation, so any extension is not deprecated by BC's enforced absence from the project) together with an option to extend the sanction by community agreement - not written in, but obvious, is that the community can also decide to reduce or remove the sanction at any time, and a definitive period after which BC can return to using whatever tools are available.

I should think the initial period should be six months, and not less than three months in any event, for it to be truly effective in convincing BC that the community is not willing to tolerate further "testing" of the wording of this and any other sanction. I would also suggest that the edit per minute count be six - ten seconds average to review each edit. Such a low rate will encourage BC to use the sandbox test and confirmation alternative.

I invite comment upon this proposal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments: Why is this needed " except where a test run of edits using semi/automated tools has been performed in a Betacommand sandbox"? I personally just blanket ban them entirely. I also wouldnt put a time limit on the ban - he has caused so many problems with this issue, be it behavioural or technical, has had dozens of times to reform his behaviour/attitude and has consistently shown his is unwilling to learn. Leave it indefinite with a wording like "this is in place for not less than a year (resetting at every violation), after which time BC can appeal to the community for it to be lifted, consensus is need for it to be lifted, not for it to remain in place." Viridae Talk 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that clause (beginning with "except where a test run...") is unnecessary, and, in fact, subverts the purpose of the sanction, which should be to force Betacommand to edit only manually. If Betacommand is so valuable to the project as people say in excusing his continued behavioral problems, his manual edits will be valuable, too.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BC has done a lot of good automated edits, but (IMO) gets sloppy from time to time. If each set of automated edits is tested and approved we get the usefulness without the disruption. Win/Win, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of people who are willing and able to run bots and even more with TW or AWB - why does it have to be BC? Viridae Talk 08:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of people who are willing and able to edit a wiki - why does it have to be you or me? -- Ned Scott 20:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that although for the sake of compromise, I think the language could be toned down. For one thing, the last sentence is unnecessary. Furthermore, people might still wikifight about "clearly manual". I wouldn't consider a Twinkle-created XfD nomination to be "clearly manual" but it would just be stupid (and punitive) to prevent BC from doing this. I suggest changing the first sentence accordingly to "Betacommand is forbidden to perform runs of repetitive editing tasks with the use of bots or scripts." Simple enough. Also I invite both BC-supporters and BC-non-supporters (!) to approach the task of tweaking the language of the sanction in a way that favors a compromise. People on both sides of the issue need to realize that a) lifting all sanctions is not an option because there was wide agreement on the need for them and b) a sanction of the form "BetaCommand will be shot the minute he touches a script" is not an option. Let's find some clear sanction we can all live with and turn the page please. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Extra note: I'd like to remind people in favor of lightening the sanction that it was originally put in place in large part because BC has often messed up big time, even with semi-automated tools. Accordingly, the sanction is not phrased as "BC is not allowed to screw up automated or semi-automated tools" but as "BC is not allowed to use automated or semi-automated tools". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I shall make my point short and crystal clear. The tools that I do use are accurate, and very helpful. I do think that the community prohibition on me running bots is not only a joke, but is harmful to the project. I have several dozen ideas for improvement that because of this silly flaming I am unable to develop and properly roll out. But I have made it a point to follow that. what is utter bullshit is me not being able to use simi-automatic tools, its a joke and I will continue to use them as I see fit. take a look at the massive amount of fuss, its not over the edits I was making using a simi-auto tool, rather it was a mistake I made with twinkle. I was doing a simple request from east, I talked to east and had the mistaken edits that where made with tw reverted without any drama. the edits that people are saying I did not have time to review and or did not check can look in my talkpage archives for screen shots. the edits that I make using my tool clearly show no errors. I will abide by the ban on bots but forbidding me from using simi-automatic tools is out of the question as I shall never abide by a ban of that nature as it goes against everything that is wikipedia. Let He who is without Sin, Cast the First Stone βcommand 22:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You make occasional mistakes with your (semi)automated editing, and you have done so consistently for some time. You fail to appreciate the disruption this causes others, are always blaming this or that (where it is your responsibility to ensure that it works this time, instead of just assuming that it is still okay), and are generally unresponsive - or downright hostile, like this - to good faith expressions of concern. Until you are able to prove that you are responsive to the communities concerns in ensuring the minimum instances of inappropriate auto-editing, it is my opinion that you are unfit to operate those tools. If that means you are unable to edit Wikipedia without recourse to such tools, then "Thanks, ta-ra"...
 * Yeah, I too fuck up - at approximately 1 edit at a time (and I am open to criticism, as well...) Your method of editing can result in balls ups at a rate of X edits per minute over an extended time. Lastly, if you have the time to review your edits before committing to them - then how come they still screw up? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And when I make errors I get the situation handled, if you note the issue with TW, I asked east to revert as I dont have rollback. this situation was handled very well. If I had all my tools at my disposal there would often never be an issue. Yes I have in the past had a short temper, but so would almost anyone who had taken that amount of crap. With the reduced stress of no longer handling non-free content, my temper has also faded. yeah I might mess up, but I also have the ability to reverse at a faster rate if I am given the proper tools. With this last issue what drama is there? I made a mistake and I asked east to kindly revert as I know east and I have shared reversion tools in the past. Had I had access to Rollback I could have easily fixed this, then there would not have been any issues. also LessHeard vanU please read what I have said, you are not the first nor will you be the last to ignore my comments. the only accident was caused by a mis-understanding of TW. that is the only error that has occured, ALL the edits that I have done simi-automatically have been without error. βcommand 00:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...the only accident was caused by a mis-understanding of TW." This is the reason why I am proposing a ban of such edits in mainspace, unless it is tested and approved in your sandbox - other operators would test (and retest) anyway outside of the mainspace; you seem to think that once you believe you have it understood you can go ahead. Once in a while, and far too often, you don't get the result desired and it is left to the community to a) clean up, and b) persuade you that it was wrong. It is not an appropriate way to proceed.
 * Personally, I think my proposal is perfect; nobody (but me) likes it in whole, and having such consensus in this place is something to aim for... LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true, not all your "semi-automatic" edits were without error. Whenever there was a "See also" section that solely included the link that you removed, you left an empty "See also" section. So, could you please go through your recent edits and fix this? --Conti|✉ 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on these last events, I think that any sanction that makes any sort of exception is useless, because it'll just lead to another round of bickering and drama. I think only the following will bring any sort of closure: Betacommand is restricted to making edits only manually with the normal MediaWiki interface. He is not allowed to use any assisted editing tools whatsoever. Furthermore, he may only have one edit tab open at any time. If Betacommand fails to abide by these restrictions, he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to one week. This sanction will be reviewed after 6 months.
 * What we're seeing now is exactly what was warned about. Betacommand can violate any agreements with impunity, because his cronies will unilaterally unblock him. This in turn gives Betacommand the idea that he is entitled to ignore the community, because hey, he'll get unblocked anyway! If Betacommand is allowed to run bots again, I guarantee that there'll be another major fuckup within three months. And then everything will just start over again. Sure, Betacommand did some good work with images some time ago (even though there were large issues with communications), but now he's just causing disruption and extra work for other volunteers over and over. At one point, we have to say that enough is enough. Is he back? (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose the above, and note that per the community discussion last time, he is not prohibited from making edits using a semi automated process, and I, amongst others will stand by that decision (apparently so as this was the basis on which he was unblocked). - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware that the last community discussion did not include semi automatic edits, which is why there is all the text above this comment (and presumably below, in due course). This is why I have made this proposal. I would also comment that if there is consensus in the community to adopt this, or any other, sanction then your personal response is irrelevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course if the community were to adopt it, that would be a different story. The fact is, currently, there are no such sanctions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. Semi-automated edits are covered by the clause about edits which appear to be automated.  The very fact that it took a significant amount of time to determine whether the edits were fully automated or semi-automated means that they fit under this clause, which has no other purpose but to cover all loopholes, but unfortunately didn't do so as well as it could have. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the arbcom case, as evident from my first sentence, where I stated I was referring to the community discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That wording is part of the final wording logging the sanctions he was under - and it came from the community discussion, not the arbcom case. Viridae Talk 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the closing statement of that thread, and the note that was left on Betacommands talk page after, that was not a part of it, unless I'm missing something. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate." From under the heading Other restrictions: Viridae Talk  04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wording that was almost exactly the same WAS placed on BCs talk page too. Viridae Talk 04:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the confusion now - as there are two separate things going on; people are referring to the arbcom case, and the community discussion without actually differentiating between the two. I'll just say that I think all of our time can be better spent elsewhere, than having yet another discussion about Betacommand.  I'm sure that most everybody would agree.  I don't plan to continue monitoring this thread, so take note with any replies that you may leave. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All this discussion is beyond depressing. BC explicitly says he does not care what the community says, naysayers argue that this is a good reason to ban BC, Rjd says there never was any support for sanctions. Let's just send the whole thing back to ArbCom: the argument that "the community is dealing with it" has clearly been debunked. For the nth time though, I'd like to point out that incompetence with automated and even semi-automated tools has been a recurring theme in BC's problems. He does screw up regularly but he's also shown time and again that he's unresponsive to complaints. Unresponsiveness is ok when you make one edit an hour, not when you do batch edits at 20 per minute. BC's answer to that is "well if I were able to run a bot, I could undo my mistakes with a bot". I suppose he could although in the past the attitude has been closer to "no I did not screw up" or "so sue me". Lost in the above discussion is the ironic fact that the whole fracas is rooted in BC screwing up with Twinkle, yet again proof that his handling of automatic or semi-automatic tools is not as deft as he or his supporters believe. On a similar note, one of the main recurring complaints about BCbot was that BC was using the Wiki as a testing ground for his programming with little or no thought given to the possible disruption. The problem from a few days ago is minor but BC states he was "testing" Twinkle. More responsible editors would do tests in a controlled way. BC does not, messes things up, needs help undoing the changes and says "it was a fuckup by twinkle". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is ever Betacommand's fault. It's always the program, the script, the hassling he gets, other people, bad policy, unclear policy, Arbcom, the community.  That so many people are so absolutely certain that his value outweighs the myriad problems he brings with him just amazes me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that, but it does seem to be true for most of the situations he's in. Massive amounts of undue weight surround these incidents. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Pascal said above. On the other hand, let's not turn Betacommand into some sort of ogre. It is all too easy to start to believe what is said about someone instead of actually reminding ourselves of what happened. There have been bad situations in the past, and I disagree with Betacommand's statement that he fixes his mistakes - rather, I would say that he fixes what he agrees was a mistake, but argues about what he doesn't think was a mistake. The redlinked categories situation comes to mind. What is needed is for the attitude of parts of the community and Betacommand towards each other to change (Betacommand to acknowledge mistakes and be open to change, and the community to be more proactive and less reactive). Until that happens, this sort of flare-up will continue to happen. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The cycle with betacommand, is not Bold (sequence of edits), Revert, stop and discuss, but, Bold, Revert, Block, Discuss. I have no objection to him making automated edits within his sandbox, but I really don't see the benefit to Wikipedia of allowing that.  I would suggest, in addition to the suggestion at the top, that an adminbot be authorized to block him if he violates the verifiable conditions (no more than X edits per minute).  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no community support for such conditions. That would be an insanely stupid idea, too. -- Ned Scott 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If BC's software is useful, but he's not careful enough about running it in production..
There seems to be an obvious solution to this issue. Software developers pretty much always want to have a test system, separate from the production system, right? I assume BC already has a copy of mediawiki and the database, right? Why doesn't he do his testing on his own test system, and then hand the software off to someone else who will take care of running it on the actual wikipedia? Beta insists he writes useful software. His critics insist he's simply not careful enough in how he runs this software in the production environment. This simple solution seems like it ought to make everybody happy, as long as whoever runs the software in production is adequately careful about what they're doing. Friday (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he doesn't seem to be getting any better at Wikipedia software development. Look at his block histories:
 * Betacommand's block history.
 * Betacommand's2 block history.
 * BetacommandBot block history.


 * He's been having serious problems for years. All the important functions of his old BetacommandBot have been taken over by other programs which don't seem to be generating many complaints. Cleaning up the messes he leaves takes community effort better spent elsewhere. --John Nagle (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody ever got blocked for writing buggy software. What's gotten Beta blocked is making mass erroneous edits, right?  Separate one issue from the other, and the problem becomes more manageable. If his software is bad enough that nobody's willing to run it here, problem solved.  If working with another person helps improve quality to the point where they are willing to take responsibility for the edits, problem solved.   It's standard practice in software development that there's a testing/quality assurance person or team separate from the person or team who wrote the software.  They do this because it improves quality. Friday (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is agreeable to everyone here, I'd be alright vetting and running any automatic scripts betacommand has written. By this I mean if betacommand accepts a task, I would be glad to operate his script and make sure that it operates in an acceptable fashion. I have programmed bots in the past, including User:RedirectCleanupBot (adminbot approved vie RFA), among others. The basic structure of the agreement is he can program a script, test it as best he can in his userspace, and hand the script over to myself and I would run it on the main encyclopedia. If there are problems I will shut the script down instantly and refuse to run it until I'm satisfied all problems are solved. (community agrees that it is "ok" to run again). After i have run 3-5 of these scripts, we can revisit the sanction, if I have too many problems I'll simply step away from running them or we can continue this same pattern. What I'm proposing to do only applies to automatic scripts, not manual scripts. ——  nix eagle  20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the script would operate under a bot account controlled by myself, and any problems with it would be my responsibility. By this I mean if there is a problem and I don't shut it down reasonably, or don't fix issues then please feel free to whack me with a trout ;). In short what I propose is as far as actual operations in article space, the buck would stop with myself. I think this would resolve the vast majority of problems, and allow betacommand to demonstrate he is able to write bug free code and do proper testing before handing it myself (which I will test/run very slowly until I'm sure of the performance). ——  nix  eagle  20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Test it in userspace? He's already not supposed to be doing that.  He should be testing it on his own development server, not coming anywhere near any Wikipedia server.  Friday (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a harm to him editing in *his* userspace with the view that the program would be run by myself once he thinks it is ready. If there is harm, I would like to know, as we could come up with some other arrangement. Basically what I'm proposing is I play the role of quality control. He has to have a way of demonstrating to me it works. I'm not about to try running something in mainspace without knowing if it will work properly. ——  nix eagle  21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure there's harm- malfunctioning software could easily edit something it's not supposed to. Any sane approach to software development involves a test environment, separate from the production environment. Friday (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very certain it would only edit User:Betacommand's space, I don't recall any of beta's problems being editing the wrong namespace. His problems are more of what changes he does and how he responds to issues (namely continuing to run things even when there are known issues in the community). If you wish for him to do his testing on his own computer, I won't argue, but I do want him to demonstrate on wiki somewhere when he thinks he has all the bugs out before I do my own testing/slow running on mainspace pages. This means everyone can see the tests. ——  nix eagle  21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The community already rejected the idea of someone else running Betacommand's bot when it was called User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. There needs to be one person taking responsibility for the edits. The situations where the bot does something unintended are easy enough to sort out, but the case where someone really needs to take responsibility is when the bot does something intentional that the community disapproves of. Now, you could accomplish what you want without running afoul of any restrictions on Betacommand like this: Beta writes some code for you. You test the code. You put it through BAG, take complete responsibility for it, understand it and maintain it. Nobody's going to restrict who you get code or ideas from.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erroneous edits and I believe his behaviour have been the two major issues. He was blocked several time for civility issues. It is the two combined that are the major problem.--Crossmr (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
We're madly divided here about the best course of action. I've got a different proposal here for consideration and it's quite different to the ones above. I'd like to allow Betacommand to run one completely uncontroversial bot task on his bot account - I think that could allow Betacommand to do something that he clearly enjoys, but at the same time, limit him to what he can actually do. His boundaries would also be fairly clear - "Do this, and this only". On top of this, I'd like to propose a mentor to help with his communication skills - they could act to advise Betacommand about how to handle situations, and this would probably be best being someone he trusts (( springs to mind as a good choice). Obviously we'd have to find a non-controversial task for betacommand to do should this get support, but I'm sure it won't be too difficult. If this is a success, we could possibly open it up to one or more tasks.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is very similar to what I have suggested above, except above a different person actually does the operations, which provides the quality control. ——  nix eagle  21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Betacommand enjoys running bots as well - I'd like to see him be allowed to have one bot task, run by himself, with an admin keeping close watch and offering help all the time. Ever so slight differences in the proposals, but that makes them very different.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, but we could come up with a system where betacommand is permitted to program new tasks, so long as someone else runs the first 500 or so edits and makes sure that there are no bugs/problems in the community before handing the bot running over to betacommand. Of course we do reasonable things like permit only one task per account (so its easy to find if he tries to run unapproved tasks). ——  nix eagle  21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a fair compromise, but I'd still like him limited to one task at a time. I think one of the problems with Betacommand has been that he's taken on too much.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah thats fine, I'm sure if someone watches over the testing and we make sure that each thing he does is done properly and is bugfree we should have no issues. His main problem is not the act of programming, it is the debug/maintaining portion. If we make sure what he writes good code and that the community in general is ok with the task (nothing controversial), we should be good. Why don't you draft up some wording and put it in a new section and let everyone have at discussing it. I do think something like this will prevent issues. ——  nix eagle  21:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it prevents any problems, those problems will only be a subset of the problems it creates. Right now we don't have problems with Betacommand's bots because he's not allowed to run them -- the only problems we have are in maintaining that restriction while he tests its limits, like in this case. Betacommand uses his bots as tools to extend his reach on Wikipedia and get his way when there is a dispute, and he won't change the way he does things just because of some extra process and a trial period. So see my suggestion above -- if you want to use code that Betacommand wrote, it's fine, but it should remain your responsibility.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be unpopular and say no... the chances are long given and long thrown back in our face.--Crossmr (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bots on Wikipedia are a privilege, not a right. As someone wrote above, Right now we don't have problems with Betacommand's bots because he's not allowed to run them. I realize that the guy wants desperately to run 'bots. He's just not very good at it. It takes so much attention from others to deal with the resulting messes that it's an overall lose for the project.  Could we trade this guy to Wikia? The Star Wars Fanon is looking for bot writers. There's a discussion underway on Wikia bot policy. Maybe he could make a contribution over in the fancruft department. Those guys desperately need spell check. There's a request in for a spell check 'bot that knows the Star Wars vocabulary. --John Nagle (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not serious (about wikia are you), and I should point out that he runs programs with very little problems on commons. ——  nix eagle  23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the twinkle issue...
I have a question for those that think betacommand is unfit to run bots on wikipedia. What chances has he screwed up? Has he caused any problems aside from the twinkle messup recently? ( I should note that his own script did the job perfectly and without anyone having to revert him ). What I'm asking is since the community sanction against him, has he had an opportunity to show that he can do a non-contreversial task well? He has before the whole image thing done non-contreversial tasks well. He seems to be able to run tasks on commons without issues. Please be specific if their have been any incidents. ——  nix eagle  23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, his script did not do the job perfectly, it created a bunch of empty "See also" sections. I'm not sure what other kinds of incidents you want, tho. The only kind of mass editing I can see in his recent contributions is adding reference sections and fixing double redirects. --Conti|✉ 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yikes! (as far as his script), and by incidents I mean something else screwed up? I mean I think this is all out of proportion for a mistake by pushing the wrong button on twinkle. However if the mistakes that his tool made were significant (done in large enough numbers) it should be made clear to him that he needs to review the whole diff, or have someone else do the first 200 edits or so and let them do the diff reviewing. I'm not so concerned about the script making mistakes as so much as the fact that betacommand has a horrible record of spotting and fixing these mistakes.
 * Example of bot/script making a mistake is my own bot: User:nixbot, check the first few edits the bot did (the ones that are not on top) and note that the bot was doing damage to the page, but also note that I was monitoring its first edits of the task and quickly fixed the issue, to the point that it has done 700 flawless edits. I still randomly sample the edits it makes to make sure that the script is functioning as it is supposed to. This is the step that betacommand does a horrible job with.
 * As far as what I meant by "incidents", quite a few folks above have been making illusions that betacommand is some evil thing that causes lots of problems, yet aside from this rather minor mishap (of twinkle) I just don't see the damage. I'm either missing something or folks are blowing things out of proportion. ——  nix  eagle  23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that Betacommand makes a small mistake (Like accidentally making a few hundred edits that need to be reverted, or leaving an empy "See also" section in maybe 0,5% of his edits) and people immediately block him for it. It's that exactly these kinds of things have happened countless times before, which eventually led to the block of BetacommandBot and the current community sanction. Requests for arbitration/Betacommand and Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 lists a few examples (Like removing all links to groups.google.com as spam, including references; or removing all selflinks from articles, including a few desired ones), but those are not nearly all. --Conti|✉ 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but how long ago was that? Aside from this incident, he seems to have been doing nothing terribly evil. Yet above folks were talking (briefly) about indef bans. I just think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion if this is all that has happened in the last 3 months. That is why I'm in support of a way to allow him to contribute to an area he likes to contribute, just with guidance from someone, especially for those parts where he has caused problems. (namely the debug/maintance stages).
 * What I propose is to allow him to operate a non-contreversial task, say fixing double links, or something else similary simple. We should establish some ground rules, like someone else has to see the code and run it for the first couple hundred edits and make sure that the program acts as it should, but beyond that, allow him to operate it and give him a chance to redeem himself. He seems to be doing a great job over on commons with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BetacommandBot and others there. ——  nix eagle  00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) I really have to wonder why people are bending over backwards to make this guy happy, when he's been nothing but trouble for years? This is not a personal reclamation project, we're here to put together an encyclopedia, and as far as I can determine, his "valuable" contributions have all been on the fringes, in ancilliary matters, not in article creation or upgrading, and the problems he's caused have eaten up incalcuable hours of users' time, all of which could have been put to bettering the project. Cut the cord, let him edit without any special privileges he certainly hasn't earned. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Betacommand is good at what he does, but he did some unapproved tasks that got him in trouble. That's the real issue here. The mistakes were minor and low in ratio when compared to a lot of other bots/scripts. I completely agree that the incidents around Betacommand have been blown out of proportion, and I support Nixegale's proposal here. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Ed, and it seems like some people are bending over backwards the other way ;). I have yet to see any evidence of disruption or problems since the community sanction thing aside from this silly twinkle mistake. (which people have offered to indef ban him over. I think that is blown out of proportion from the offense, which betacommand had fixed immediately (by notifying east). Allowing him to do something non-controversial should be a way to see if he is really up to the task or not. He has demonstrated on commons that he is capable of the work in the last 3 months. ——  nix  eagle  00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG! The evidence is all around you, you're soaking in it!! We can certainly debate whether the response is warranted or not, whether it's an overreaction or not, but there's absolutely no denying the disruption he causes.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is all around me, feel free to point it out specifically. This thread is out of proportion to the mistake, his only one in the last 4-5 months from what I can tell. If I'm wrong, please point out other incidents. ——  nix eagle  00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) And actually, my point is in the other direction. The behavior down here in this section of the page would make some sense if BC's contribution to the project was so insanely good that doing everything humanely possible to keep him would be worthwhile, but that's just not the case. OK, he's done some good stuff, but it's just not worth the bother and it's certainly not worth this concerted effort to make him happy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for a reply as far as other incidents of disruption. I mean if this is all that he has done in the last 3-4 months, that is not bad at all. ——  nix eagle  01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. This is not to make him happy, but my belief that he can be a net benefit to the project, he has shown on commons he can work with people. I think its high time to see if he can do the same here after a 3 month break. ——  nix eagle  01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Well, I'm not sure how to say this Ed, but you're wrong. You're taking extremes that are... just far from reality. I don't know how else to explain it. -- Ned Scott 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm just pointing out the reality of what is. His disruptiveness is a engine the parts are which are his mistakes, our responses, his behavior, the community's reaction, and the cycling that ensues. I'm not measuring each of those components, I'm just saying that what the machine does is bad, let's shut down the machine, it's not worth all this effort. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going from my observations and experiences -- you want to convince me, or any one else, that BC is worth all this concern and effort, you're going to have to do a little better than "you're just wrong." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I should point out that I'm still waiting for evidence of all this disruptiveness. Anyone that is willing to show some in the last 3 months (past the community sanction) I'd love to know. As I have said, he has redeemed himself on wikimedia commons. Take that as my evidence that it is high time we give him a chance with a non-controversial task. ——  nix eagle  01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check his talk page, the bots talk page, the ANI archives, etc. There have been countless threads about him long before the community sanction about his bot, his behaviour, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you won't find any recent incidents of bot abuse from someone who isn't allowed to use bots, so I'm still not sure why you want "recent" incidents. He didn't do anything terribly evil because he's not allowed to do much at all. --Conti|✉ 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Crossmr, you say *before* the sanction, I'm talking about after, ie, recent problems. I have seen none. He is able to run a bot on wikimedia commons without issue, and has caused no major problems since the sanction. I think its time to see if he is capable of running a bot on enwiki, he has been able to do so on commons. ——  nix eagle  01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone seems to forget that when he's called to task for his mistakes, he often reacts with a lot of hostility and civility issues which he's been blocked for in the past. It is one thing to make a mistake, its another thing to lash out at people who take issue with your mistake. So while we took away the bot issue (sort of, he's trying to get around it with various scripts, "semi automated" programs, etc) he never seemed to understand the civility problems and correct that either. The big issue is his failure to correct his behaviour (any behaviour) after he's called on it. The bot, civility, etc are all symptoms of the larger problem. His inability to properly function in the community. People need to step back and take a higher level view of this. He has become progressively worse over time. Great if he can function on commons, but he has shown he can't function here. Any other editor would have been long blocked here and an unblock request would be met with everyone gathering around to giggle about it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been the case for me, and BC and I don't always get along. -- Ned Scott 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't even count the amount of users I've seen come by ANI over the last year to complain about how rude BC is. That even included the several month break I took, so it started even before that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't even count the massive amount of newbies that have unfairly vented at BC because they couldn't follow basic rules for uploading images. That's just one situation, too. -- Ned Scott 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * still not an excuse for his behaviour. Last I checked there are no exceptions made on WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA that says "if someone yells at your first you're free to lash out at them and insult them.". I could be wrong though, I haven't read it in a few days.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't excuse his behavior, but it puts it into context. -- Ned Scott 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Everyone here seems to treat it as just another way to excuse his behaviour and let him continue to run rampant with his negative behaviour. Context is immaterial in this case. If we block an editor for uncivil behaviour and he was being harassed by a lot of people, we might shorten the block, but implore him to clean up his behaviour in the future and find another way to deal with it. BC has been completely unsuccessful in that regard. He hasn't changed his behaviour and continues to behave poorly as evidenced by the large clump of blocks last month. That incivility existed a LONG time ago and has never changed. I've also seen the same rudeness, disparaging remarks and insulting tones thrown at civil users asking innocent questions.--Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to poke my nose in to give an unsolicited, personal, comment from an average-joe, content-contributing editor. And if this is all redundant, irrelevant to this particular discussion, or in the wrong place-- tough. I am an editor who was driven away by sort of behavior that the editor in question has engaged in, and I wish to state my piece somewhere where his actions are under review. When I first began editing at Wikipedia, I encountered "Betacommandbot" everywhere, and took this to be the "Voice of Wikipedia." That voice, it seemed to me, was harsh, condescending, intolerant, random, unfair, illogical, petty, etc... During one of the many tasks I set about working on here (I limited myself to contributing content, not removing it-- the particular fetish of this bot-owner), I was adding film posters to film articles which had none. I'd spend an hour or so sometimes finding, scanning, preparing an image description, uploading, and adding the image. Sometimes I would notice something troubling in the film article's history-- there had already been a perfectly acceptable Fair Use poster image at the article, but it had been wrongly deleted because a bot was unable to read the image description. Sometimes the images description was perfectly appropriate, but not in a particular bot-readable format. Usually it had been tagged by Betacommandbot or one of another small group of editors with similar editing and social... "skills" for want of a better word. Next came the mis-taggings of my own perfectly appropriate Fair Use images during one of Betacommandbot's dozen-per-minute sprees. Had I not been an active editor at the time-- I no longer am-- my replacement images, and all the work I put into them, would have been deleted for absolutely no good reason, just like the images I replaced had been. I would fix the image descriptions to work with the particular bot script... Next came the mis-taggings by another bot... That's when I realized I was performing a futile task, gave up work on film posters, and moved onto another area which eventually also proved futile, again, because of over-zealous deletionists just like Betacommand. When I later came to realize that "BetacommandBot" was not the official voice of Wikipedia, but just a bot run by another editor, it seemed to me to be even an even worse situation. It absolutely astounds me that such destructive behavior is tolerated for so long by the Wikipedia community, given so many chances, and, meanwhile, removes so much good content and drives away so many contributors. Yes, we need editors who responsibly look for material that needs to be removed here, but the reckless deletion practised by Betacommand (I see he's moved onto Speedying, Prodding and AfDing notable subjects now...) results in a huge loss for Wikipedia-- not only a loss in deleted content, but a loss in editors who come here to contribute content not to run deletion-tagging bots like they are some sort of video game... Betacommand was just one of the "editors" who helped give me a feeling that Wikipedia has become a playground for irresponsible deletion. Editors like Betacommand, and the tolerance of their behavior by the Wikipedia community, eventually convinced me that contributing content here marks one as a second-class citizen, and is, ultimately, a futile effort. I strongly believe this editor, and any other editor who removes content as recklessly and incivilly as he does, should be blocked indefinitely. Dekkappai (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for chipping in with a fresh reminder of the effect that BetacommandBot had. Most of us share your experience here.  I hated the bot with a vengeance, and abhor the general method of enforcing fair use here on Wikipedia, or at least how it was back when BC was running his bots, but I am pretty sure not much has chanced.   Whenever I want a reminder of just how bad it is for new users who are trying to do the right thing, I go to User talk:Route 82.  One thing to keep in mind here is that the community has spoken out against this, and Betacommand is no longer permitted to enforce fair use with bots, even if they are approved because we have found that the code for these bots changes randomly without regard for how this affects users.  His edits this time are unrelated to these historical problems which have been remedied already, and he is acutely aware that the community is no longer comfortable with him enforcing fair use.  I personally feel that he should abandon the name "BetacommandBot" and pick a new bot name if he is ever permitted to have a bot account.  Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I am aware that his record of enforcement of fair use is very good, and that the enforcement wasnt the issue directly responsible for his bots being turned off, however the fair use enforcement played a large part due to latent resentment in the community, like Dekkappai reminds us of. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good? I don't get it. When such enforcement is "harsh, condescending, intolerant, random, unfair, illogical, petty, etc...", it's clearly not good at all.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Firm proposal
I think this proposal has some merit, allowing Betacommand to complete one non-controversial task with an experienced bot operator looking over his shoulder, and checking first.

"The community allows to use one extra account as a bot account. He is permitted to tag images that are duplicated at commons. After completing the code, Betacommand must give this code to an experienced bot operator who will test the code for 200 edits, upon approval from the bot approvals group. If there are no problems or concerns after 200 edits, Betacommand will be permitted to use the code on his own bot account. He is not permitted to do any other tasks on his main, or bot account. Further to this, Betacommand must make no more than 30 edits in a 5 minute period on his main account, and only create one change to each article."

thoughts?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad, emphasizing no other tasks. he should be limited to one and only one task (either manual or automatic) If there are any problems with his behavior to other users during this time, simply block his bot account, and state *no* automatic edits at all (including twinkle, and the like). This should give him an opportunity to redeem himself, as he has shown himself capable on wikimedia commons. ——  nix eagle  01:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember my history here for certain, but doesn't Beta have a history of not paying attention to what he's supposed to do with bots? It might be a waste of time to try to make up new rules we have no reason to believe he'll follow.  Friday (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * don't try to confuse the issue with your logic.. ;) --Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should make it clear that he either goes with the flow here or he loses the ability to edit with any script, automatic or manual. Perhaps make that explicit in the proposal above. As it is, the proposal is only one bot account and no semi-automatic editing. (perhaps ryan could clarify if that is his proposal). ——  nix eagle  01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very open to semi-automatic editing, but we need to make it clear what that is.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, alright fine, no editing on his main account faster then 6-10 edits a minute? Perhaps ask that any tool he uses does only one change, (no cleanup stuff) so its easy to tell?) ——  nix eagle  01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 edits a minute from his main account is good - but it would be better to say 30 edits in 5 minutes so if he steps slightly over the mark in a minute by accident, we won't have these threads happening. One change per edit is also good.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my comments above.--Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Full support lets stop the speculation and see what happens. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, I've changed the task to tagging duplicated images at commons - that's fairly uncontroversial and something that Beta has an interest in.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't there already someone doing that? Frankly messing around with images is what brought his behaviour to light.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you care to stop speculating on what might happen? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With that attitude we should probably just unblock everyone who has ever been blocked right? Any future behaviour we expect unless they come right out and say "I will vandalize if unblocked" is just speculation. Would you care to stop trying to excuse his behaviour? A pattern of behaviour isn't speculation. He has a history of making mistakes. People have a history of calling him on it. He has a history of becoming uncivil when they do.--Crossmr (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And his recent history on commons seems to show that he has learned some. This silly incident with twinkle aside I have yet to see him do anything harmful or disruptive since the first community sanction. ——  nix  eagle  01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -In his best Dr. Cox- Really? I see edit warring, uncivil behaviour, and frankly this whole incident with a "semi-automated" program and his attempts to wiki-lawyer it are disruptive Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2.--Crossmr (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That was 4 months ago, I'm talking about something recent, as in the last 3 months. The way you have it, you think he can never redeem himself. I think he can and has on wikimedia commons. I'll reconsider my thinking if someone can point me at a major incident since June. ——  nix  eagle  01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You just said you haven't seen him be disruptive since the sanction. He was sanctioned. He has blocks for uncivil behaviour and edit warring only 1 month ago. Last I checked 1 month is less than 3 months. He was blocked multiple times for Edit warring and uncivil behaviour in July. Including having to be reblocked only an hour after his block was lifted early.--Crossmr (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noting this, instead of simply saying "disruptive" you have qualified what you mean by disruptive. ——  nix eagle  01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I assumed that if you were commenting on this you'd be familiar with his block log and noticed the big clump of blocks in July for repeated issues with him. he seemed to be consistently edit warring and acting uncivilly in regards to one page/area which is fairly disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support the proposal that Ryan has noted above. Any other comments after that, I'm not confirming my support nor opposition to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I support this, provided that the experienced operator be listed on the bot's page as the person who should be contacted if issues arise. This would let Betacommand use his strength in technical areas to help WP, while letting a different person be the public face of the bot. The other operator, of course, would be able to stop the bot if any issue arise. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1. No trust for use of bot. 2. On main account, rather than a speed restriction, would like to see 'Further to this, Betacommand must consider each edit he makes from his main account, and only create one change to each article.' Jd2718 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose "He is not permitted to do any other tasks on his main, or bot account." That would prevent him from doing the typical maintenance tasks that he is good at doing, and does perform usually without incident.  I like the idea of giving BC back the ability to run a 'Move to Commons' bot, provided it does not run any other task.  The wording stipulating that the code must be tested by someone else is also a very good idea - I would go further and require that the person endorsing it actually has to do so publicly so we know who else to hang if it fucks up catastrophically. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why exactly are we talking about relaxing Betacommand's sanctions? To reward him for testing the boundaries of his sanctions and fucking up while doing so? This kind of declaration -- especially one so complex, with so many clauses for him to find loopholes in -- just creates the capacity for more problems in the future.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No bots, no automation, no semi-automation, no scripts, nothing except  manual edits . Anything less is simply giving him yet another opportunity to screw up, and yet another thread like this one. ( Note  Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose enough warnings, enough disruption. Viridae Talk 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many loopholes, and will just be a return to the status quo before the 2nd arbcom case. Also, I agree with Rspeer: Rewarding Betacommand by loosening his sanctions right after he has violated them sends an entirely wrong message. If Betacommand had abided by the sanctions and actually done productive work, then we could have discussed this. Is he back? (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First Choice Looks like a refinement of mine, earlier. Wording would need to be cleaned up to indicate that this would be the only (semi)automated edits on the main account - allowing manual edits to continue, and presumably not included in the 60 per 5 days limit otherwise. I would also suggest that we stick with the one account, providing the form of words demarking the difference between bot type and "manual" edits and their limits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, the things one misses when an ANI thread gets detached from the main noticeboard. I support this to the extent that Beta has a clear interest in using pattern-matching algorithms, imo it is the air that he breathes, and he needs an outlet for those urges - so give him one place to do that and maybe he won't try to do it everywhere he can. I'm doubtful as to letting him run a bot account though, I thought Nixeagle's proposal to take responsibility for the script-ops was the best so far. I also think letting Beta do commons-duplicate tagging is a seriously bad idea. I've recently read some-to-many threads about how images get transferred to Commons as free, get deleted from Commons because they don't meet the rules there - and now the proposal is to get Beta involved in deleting the image here that conforms to en:wiki rules? Somehow I just don't see that having a happy ending... Franamax (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A firmer proposal

 * 1) The indef block on  stays in place.
 * 2) The indef block on Betacommand's sock puppet account,, stays in place.
 * 3)  is blocked for 60 days.
 * 4)  is blocked for 60 days.

Before commenting on this, if you haven't read the block logs for these accounts, do so. Note that when examining the block logs, many have more than 50 entries, so not all will show on the first page. Less restrictive sanctions have been tried and failed many times over a period of years. --John Nagle (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Block for what, a twinkle misclick? He has already been blocked for that. We don't do punitive blocks. ——  nix eagle  02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exhausting the communities patience? continued disruptive behaviour in one form or another? The excuse of "oops I made a mistake and it blew up in my face" wears a little thin with him, especially when he takes no ownership of the issue.--Crossmr (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * John, your ignorance is astounding. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ned, are you a total moron? You are sure acting the part. Do you have any idea who you are talking about? John Nagle is someone with decades of programming experience, not to mention someone who has had a hand in designing fundamental internet communications protocols. You know, the infrastructure that allows you to connect and edit Wikipedia? I think he knows better then you about these types. He has had nothing but sound judgement when it comes to Betacommand, it is a pity we haven't taken his suggestions more seriously. To the point about Betacommand never fucks up too much, I would only say take a look at shit Betacommand did when he did his DEFAULTSORTS fuckup. A perfect example of his incorrigable nature, people tried to tell him he was screwing up but he just archived their complaints without further consideration. I fancy those who had to clean up after thousands of screwups, often no longer being the top revision, are propbably quite sick of this. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an idle question. What happens on the next misclick? rootology  ( T ) 04:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * he gets a barnstar and a big hug apparently.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Many of his blocks have been short term in order to deal with immediate issues, or mounting concerns about an unattended bot.  The blocks have been effective: he is still here, doing the good work, which is the only desirable outcome for a block of a good faith contributor. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They were so effective he had to be blocked several times for edit warring and uncivil behaviour last month, including being blocked again just an hour after his block was lifted early. Yes..certainly very effective and he's given all indication that he truly understands how his negative behaviour is impacting the community. We should make him president.--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An effective block doesn't have another following it in the block log. Viridae Talk 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stupid suggestion and proposal
I just reread all of this. It's a totally incomprehensible mess, and good people are pointinlessly sniping at each other in epic fashion--look at the above section for example. Can I make a dumb suggestion? Shoot it down if completely wrong. Beta obviously cares about WP, or he wouldn't have put up with the crap he's put up with. People are jumping all over him for the slightest misclick. Beta obviously likes to edit en masse. Can I make the suggestion for that, say 3 months of active editing (i.e., no wikibreaks to get around this--he has to stay 'active') beta be restricted from any tools period? Blank, protect his monobook.js, no twinkle, limit of 10-15 edits/minute. That's the fastest I think I've ever done with Firefox tabs, and I like to think I'm a fast tabber. Beta puts up 400, 500 edits a month using the editing window tool for 3 months. If nothing blows up or the world doesn't end, after 3 months, unlock his monobook. Another 3 months, nothing blows up, no restrictions period beyond the arbcom stuff. We'd be close to the end of the sanction there, then, yes? If Beta blows it along the way with apparently automated/tool based editing, then block away, increasing in length. The "Get Beta" crowd are frothing. The "Save Beta" crowd are frothing. This is as about in the middle as it can get, and comes down to whether beta can deal with it. Good idea? rootology ( T ) 05:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite a good idea, actually. A sort of 'stepped' response. Talk Islander 09:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again..why does there need to be a middle? Just because he has some cheerleaders doesn't mean his problems should be white washed. Haven't the years that have passed been enough time for him to get his act together? Just how patient are we supposed to be, and why? Can anyone who wants him to stay here genuinely give us a good reason other than "he occasionally does some good stuff that doesn't hose things". Last I heard he was still refusing to take responsibility for his actions and blaming everything but the neighbours cat (if he has done that great, could could someone point to it?).--Crossmr (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent proposal, with one drawback - far too gameable. Starts using scripts ten weeks into first injunction; gets blocked, unblocked, arguments erupt that there is a violation, counter arguments that he has largely complied and would have ended very soon... no consensus results (but a lot of bad feeling). Two months after that, BC launches a bot script that breaks something... Any proposal here must be "indefinite", in that relaxation can only be considered after compliance with the existing conditions and discussion. I am afraid that this is the only way this will work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Manual edits only
"'In recognition that in the past he has made useful contributions to the project, and in the hope that he will continue to do so in the future, the community restricts to manual editing  on Wikipedia at all times.  Betacommand is not allowed to run a  bot or use any automated or semi-automated aids of any sort to assist in his editing, including, but not limited to, scripts, gadgets and add-ons.  Any edits which violate these restrictions, or appear to the community to violate these restrictions, will be grounds for a community ban.'"

This is the only thing which makes sense to me, given the history, and the reality. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per my comments above. There is no real issue here regarding Beta's current set of tools. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. Thousands of editors are able to edit without scripts or other nonsense, I see no reason why we can't expect the same from Betacommand. If he actually has anything to contribute to Wikipedia, he can do it manually. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. He may still find a way to accidentally damage Wikipedia (subtle template errors?), but this seems reasonable.  I'd like to be able to let him use a script to properly generate AfDs (sorry, I mean the 3 edits required to properly add a single AfD, not multiple AfD creation; see, I'm having trouble already with possible misinterpretation), and warn the creators of speedy deletes, proposed deletes, and AfDs, but I can't see a good way to allow that without his misinterpreting it.  (Speaking of which, is there a script to properly add merge requests?  I've screwed up the pointers a few times.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Derivative of my own idea above. I think swallowing one's pride may be for the benefit of the encyclopedia so there are no more disruptive fights like this for several months. It can always be revisited 3-6 months from now. rootology  ( T ) 13:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's simple, and (if he abides by it), it solves the problem.  If he doesn't, this will be apparent in the edit history, and the problem will be quickly detected and fixed.  Friday (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely oppose This is a huge punitive-minded overkill and is certainly much harsher than anything the BC supporters will see as a decent, workable compromise. The use of scripts to do non-repetitive tasks such as Twinkle XfD nominations is not a problem (see e.g. BC's latest contribs). There is no reason to have a pending community ban. We need to work on some middle-ground solution and this is precisely the kind of proposal that will inflame the discussion and prevent us from finding that middle ground. People need to tone it down and avoid hyperboles, extreme punitive solutions, systematic defense of BC regardless of context and so on. All this does is drive away cool-headed people from the important discussion at hand: as the deadlock continues, people just radicalize their position until the only editors left in the discussion are the "let's hang BC"-crowd and the "let's give BC a barnstar for his fantastic work in the face of rabid mobs"-crowd. Let's just delete this section and go back discussing the merits of earlier, more reasonable proposals. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not punitive at all, or not intended to be. Its intent is to prevent yet another Betacommand scrum, which break out every couple of months and soak up untold editing hours that could be put to better use. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, there's no shortage of people who support a community ban here. This proposal is the middle ground.   Friday (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as there is one uninvolved admin who will unblock, it makes little difference how many people support a community ban. This isn't VFB. We need to find some solution that will allow Betacommand to employ his strengths and avoid areas in which he is less strong. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * History has shown that in the case of Betacommand, there is always one admin who will unblock; the current case being simply the latest example. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, experience shows that civility blocks, if placed, are typically lifted very quickly on editors who have strong contributions in some area together with civility problems. This isn't specific to Betacommand, it's a systemic issue with civility blocks. In the present situation with Betacommand, I think that nixeagle's idea to have Betacommand work together with another operator might be workable. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for a community ban is simply not there, not even close. Yes, every BC thread contains calls for his head but if you believe that the above proposal is middle-ground then you are in fact part of the problem. BC is typically unblocked by admins who feel that BC is the victim of crusaders out to get him. The only way to resolve this is to find a solution that is both reasonable and unambiguous so that any future block is a clear-cut case. You can scream all you want that anything less than super-restrictive sanctions is a win for BC but the end result is the perpetuation of the deadlock which is probably also a win for BC but more importantly it's a guarantee that more time will be wasted in threads like this one. Look at how this thread has evolved. Proposed sanction rewrite #1 does not get support from either ends of the spectrum so proposed sanction #2 is harsher. Gets a little more support from one end and even less from the other end. Ok proposed sanction #3, even more radical, so BC supporters stop participating in the debate... This is going nowhere and until you and other editors who are particularly unhappy with BC start opening the door to compromise, the waste of time and energy will continue. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Betacommand has shown time and time again that he never admits to ever being in the wrong, and disregards any concerns from the community. He never learns from any mistakes, it is always someone else's fault. He has screwed up tens of thousands of bot edits throughout the times, and other bot operators have bots that are way more reliable, and do not have the incivil, newbie-biting, stubborn attitude that Betacommand has. I believe he has exhausted the community's patience when it comes to bots or any sort of assisted editing tools. Is he back? (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I honestly don't think there's ever been a problem with his semi-automated editing, so I therefore view any sanction banning these types of edits punitive.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do seem to remember the whole defaultsort drama. Beta claimed that since it was just a script editing once per second that it was not a fully automated bot. The problem is that betacommand doesn't distinguish between semi-automated editing where a person actually observes the edit and one where multiple edits happen in the background, with some small subset of the edits, sometimes just the article name to be edited are controlled by the operator. AKAF (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice If BC, or those who are arguing his case for him, are unable to accept that his type of use of semi-automated edit contravenes the "...appearance of..." qualification in the previous proposal, then a limit to manual only editing is appropriate. Naturally, should this proposal be adopted, BC could ask for a (limited) lifting of the restriction after a period of compliance - which can then be discussed. I feel it important that we must not remove the prospect of BC ever using scripts, etc., if there is a chance for protecting the encyclopedia by agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the key to it is that we need to make clearer wording about what a semi-automated edit is. The only way we're going to stop the confusion in the future is to define semi-automated by a number of edits per minute.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference (bolded and underlined) to  manual editing  is the operative feature of the proposal: the refs to automated, semi-automated etc are merely supportive. Is there really any doubt about what "manual" means? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  16:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the edit summary does not have the magic "per TW" or other, how easy is it going to be to prove that the 15 edits in that one minute were "assisted by software" or were just very quickly manually created/reviewed? A limit removes the temptation, as well as undue suspicion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any edits which violate these restrictions,  or appear to the community to violate these restrictions , will be grounds for a community ban." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that an X edits per Y minutes formula would help, since as worded there are no limits on the number of edits over any time period in this proposal - and (another) argument over how fast an editor can "manually" review an edit could arise. Like you, I still wish to see an option that allows BC to perform supervised "bot like" edits since this is clearly what he likes doing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This is in fact my interpretation of the existing and in force sanction. We the community do not trust Betacommand's judgment where use of scripts is involved; we've been burned too often.  GRBerry 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It seems fairly obvious that Betacommand has exhausted the community's patience with any form of automated edits. That's what at least I thought the Sam Korn solution proposed to fix a few months ago.  Let Beta try manual editing, like most everyone who edits Wikipedia, until he can regain the community's confidence.  In addition, I would hope that a lot of Beta's civility problems are resolved when he has the opportunity to preview, ponder, and give constructive thought to each edit he makes on Wikipedia.  BrownHornet21 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Some ideas

 * (1) If the community as a whole are unable to come up with some restriction that will work, why not let the community pass the task to a subset of users that can go away, work out some wording, and then come back here? The community (those still here) could agree on, say, five people to do that. Then the proposed solution can be put to the community.
 * (2) The amount of time spent on these issues is, slowly, reaching a tipping point. If the community can't agree on anything, and Betacommand himself can't propose a voluntary restriction that the community will agree is acceptable, then the best options seem to be to either appoint a set of mentors to deal with issues so that the rest of the community can get on with other stuff (this is important), or ban Betacommand. I would much prefer Betacommand propose a voluntary restriction as: (a) he will be more likely to stick to it; and (b) it would show some recognition that there have been problems. The mentor solution should also be workable, if Betacommand can find someone to work with. The ban would be an absolute last resort, but needs to be there to ensure that this process is taken seriously. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strongly support this. I was actually thinking of organizing this at some point. I suggest leaving out anyone in favor of an outright ban of BC or any admin who has blocked or unblocked BC in the past two months. That should a) give a tad more credibility to the process and b) favor cool-headed discussion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this - providing we can find five individuals who are capable of coming to an agreement after fully exploring all the alternatives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support this, but I think we need to be more restrictive as to the possible "uninvolved" people. I think anyone who has ever blocked or unblocked BC should be removed from the potential list; the former, because BC would not respect their opinion, and the latter, for (at least perceived) fairness.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends why they unblocked him. I'm on the list of people who've unblocked Betacommand. I think you mean those who unblocked him early. I can't quite recall how my unblock went, but I think it was done carefully and methodically and with community input at all stages. Might have been a tad too quick. I should really have a link to the discussion somewhere. Unless someone wants to find it for me? Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no objection to you being on the committee, although fairness does suggest that you not be considered, especially since BC would not accept anyone who ever blocked him (even in response to clear ArbComm or 3RR violations) or has ever proposed an indefinite ban. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

comment from BC
I will make this brief as to avoid a slip of the tongue and offend those who want me banned. Let me also make some points crystal clear. Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated. such blatant abuse and disregard for me will end in bad results for whom ever decides to be that disrespectful to me. I Have tried to leave this issue to those who have a cooler head. But obviously the radicals are again being disruptive. I will admit that I have fucked up before, when that happens I take appropriate actions to ensure that the issues are resolved. Not everyone can agree with my actions, but that goes with anyone editing the encyclopedia. Yes I have been known to loose my cool. There are many many others both those who agree with me and those who dont who can see a major shift in the communities behavior. Long ago there was time for calm discussion, now that time has been forgotten except by a few. One prime example who has become fully aware of this is. Instead of trying to place someones head on a spike, lets approach the situation in a calm relaxed manner, and avoid the head hunts.

For those who seem to forget I have done a lot of good for this project, there are only 108 accounts on wikipedia with over 80,000 edits most of those are bot accounts, but I am part of that. ~60% of my edits are to the mainspace. Lets compare that with most of the people here and most others. I spend a majority of my time improving the encyclopedia. I have written tools such as usercompare and. As for restrictions any tightening of them is un-called for. here is a thought, Let, , , and  come up with a solution to solve this issue as they seem to have the levelest heads. I have been on both sides with most of these users at one point or another. So lets have those who can maintain the cool heads attempt to reach a neutral solution to this. As no one is really profiting from these drama fest over nothing. βcommand 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from potential ad-hoc committee members

 * I think it might work to have three members chosen by Betacommand and three members chosen by others. I'd be willing to contribute to the committee if I am on the final list. As I understand it, the idea is for the committee to carefully consider all the sanctions that have been placed so far, along with the valid reasoning behind them, and propose some sort of way forward. In the end, the committee would make a proposal that need to be ratified by discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good way of moving things forward. We need to bring together all the ideas from the community so far, and come up with something that the community is happy with and that is going to stop these discussions in the future. In my opinion, the best way to move forward to make a list of things that Betacommand can and can't do - make it concise so that he knows exactly what's expected, and I guess so the community knows as well. No more vauge wording, a list of scripts that he's allowed to use (e.g. Twinkle), with no exceptions without approval from the community. We need to sit down with Betacommand and find out what he currently uses, and what he expects to use in the future. It would be good to do this without the noise that this page currently has. When the committee has had chance to go through everything, they could make proposals to the community and hopefully we'd have a better idea of how to move forward. What I don't want to see is this turning into WP:BETACOM, with that having jurisdiction over everything Betacommand does - if there's a problem in the future, any uninvolved administrator should be free to take action.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only re-iterate what has been mentioned above. I'm fine with the idea that Betacommand has proposed, and I'm fine with being a part of this group, should that be decided.  Moving forward, Ryan makes some good points on what should and should not be done by the community: Specific do's and dont's are ideal, to make sure that everybody, including Betacommand is on the same page, avoiding such bureaucracy as WP:BETACOM is a must.  We all should realize (that is, everybody who has commented or read this page) that Betacommands intent is, and as far as I know always has been, and will continue to be, to improve the encyclopedia.  He has done good things, and putting aside the negative marks that he has accumulated over time, I strongly believe that he can continue to be a very beneficial member of this project (assuming that we can correct some of the other conduct issues – which I believe can happen).  I'll also note a trend, that is quite obvious - many people who have commented on this idea have let their own opinions of Betacommand get in the way.  As for who should be in this group: Many users are opposing people who have defended Betacommand, while they are suggesting supporting users who have stated dislike or opposition to Betacommand.  I'm sure you realize that isn't a good way to go about things.  In all honesty, it should be a neutral group of people who haven't stated either support or opposition to anything here.  That would of course eliminate me, but if we're going to do this, I'd rather it gets done right.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from others
Strongly oppose Betacommands suggested makeup of a committee, on the obvious grounds that the person who is the subject of possible sanctions should not be in a position to suggest the makeup of the committee exploring that possibilty. Because of this de facto appearance of a conflict of interest – created by Betacommand, and not necessarily a reflection on the credibility or rectitude of these editors – none of them should be eligible to serve on any ad hoc committee. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The amount of effort expended on dealing with BC is way past the desirable point. BC handpicking the whole committee simply is not going to work. Perhaps half of the committee. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Above two comments moved from the BC comments section.

This sounds reasonable to me. It protects Betacommand from the more reactive elements of the community, and reduces the drama. Hopefully the community will defer to this ad-hoc committee. I hope no-one minds me adding two sections here. One for those five named users to comment in and accept this, if they will, and another section for others to comment in. Betacommand, have you notified those five users, or would you like someone to do that for you. Might be best if someone else made formal contact, if you haven't already. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider and  to have some of the same inability to see the obvious consensus that Beta has.  I don't see that the committee necessarily has the consent of the community, but this may be acceptable, provided this process goes on in parallel with enforcing the previous ArbComm and community sanctions (including "appears to be automated").  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I would have pushed Pascal onto the committee, but I think letting Betacommand choose at least a plurality of the members is important, or at least having him agree to the composition. I agree that Betacommand should hold off on serious editing until an attempt has been made to sort something out. I think this ad-hoc committee is only intended to come up with a workable wording and solution (and then dissolve), not to be his mentors and guardians and parole officers (that would get silly), though that might change. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. The community should pick the members, without interference from Betacommand, as it is the community which must be satisfied with their decision, not Betacommand.  This is not a negotiation, after all, between the community and Betacommand, it is a negotiation within the community, a fact which seems to have been missed by several of the names proposed above in their comments in this thread. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about, either. I find his comments above ambiguous as to whether he understands the clear meaning of the sanctions.  However, I do think some of the members of the committee should be selected by Betacommand, or he won't accept the committee's decision, leading to the same wikilawyering that got us here.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The community pick ArbCom as well. I know, Jimbo makes the selections, but there is a massive vote that he follows, at least in theory. The point is that if you (Ed) were before ArbCom (or Beta, say), there are problems when an editor doesn't trust the ArbCom to hand down a fair decision. Sometimes it really does help to have a practical and workable solution that is accepted by everyone and reduces the drama. This let's people concentrate on improving the encyclopedia. A key step in this process is the person whose behaviour is being examined accepts the authority of the committee and will respect the decision they come up with. There is no guarantee, of course. You might start off thinking that user A is a great bloke, and then when they agree to some "silly" sanction, you realise how wrong you were in your judgment. But at least having the process start with a mandate from both sides helps. This is in some ways similar to an informal mediation, conducted (possibly) in the open. Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Hmmm. All I can say is that I hope such an accomodating attitude prevails if I ever violate community sanctions so brazenly – but I won't hold my breath. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and I shan't hold my breath pending you violating policy in any event. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I daresay some would disagree. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of the proposed members by BC, I certainly would support Ryan Postlethwaite's attendance. I regret that I would be opposed to Ned Scott and Rjd0060 in light of their interactions with BC's critics on these pages - comments generally directed at the contributor rather than the argument itself. The others would be fine, although I think there would be a need for some more less BC orientated voices to balance any percieved bais. For the unenvious position of the voice of "middleman", together with Ryan P, I would also suggest (if willing to be considered). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I also object to allowing Beta to pick his own committee. There is a committee with broad community support: arbcom. If enforcement of existing sanctions won't stick because Beta can always count on a friend to unblock him, this is something arbcom needs to address. Jonathunder (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have that many issues with Ryan or CBM, but I do feel that generally Nix and Rjd are too close to Beta and that Ned may not be the most impartial individual to select. Could I suggest some sort of listing where anyone willing to take on the task put their names forward and let beta and the community express their views on appropriateness and then let an uninvolved crat make the final close?  MBisanz  talk 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to that as well. Send it back to arbcom if there is a problem. As well I think his "statement" above gives us again all the perspective we need. Veiled threats and all.--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually trust that people who are considered for this committee will have the good sense and honesty to decline if they feel that they're not impartial or insufficiently perceived (rightly or wrongly) as impartial to make it work. Though preferable, I don't think BC's approval of the candidates is needed: the point is to come up with consensual restrictions that the community can vet and monitor without mini wheel-wars. If BC rejects these restrictions, well that will be his problem. For the record, I don't want to be part of this committee. Ryan's a good choice: calm guy, aware of the history. Might be good also to just get an experienced mediator onboard, (preferably not involved in recent discussions) and a bot-aware editor (though I suppose it's hard to find someone in that crowd who isn't perceived as pro/anti-BC. How about ?). Maybe also someone like who only got involved in recent discussions? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pascal, I was formerly known as LaraLove, so I easily fall on the side of a Beta apologist. I think most of the community has an opinion on Betacommand one way or the other. I believe any such committee should not be limited to users on only one side. Personally, I have no problem with participating on such a committee. I understand the grievances of most editors who want to see Beta banned. At the same time, I find great value in his contributions. To be able to help figure out a way to keep him here and everyone else happy would be wonderful. Jennavecia  (Talk)  00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

BC has had plenty of chances to amend his behavior. This committee, in whatever form it takes, needs to make it work once and for all. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After his comment I recommend full banning with no further discussion. Any admin who attempts to edit my monobook in an attempt to remove "simi-automated" tools and screws up my user interface will not be tolerated. Sounds like someone who would refuse to accept any community sanction he doesn't agree with and start some kind of war of it. This doesn't sound like someone who is ready to work with the community and he should be removed as soon as possible.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly his comment was objectionable, uncivil, rude, self-centered, uncompromising, unconciliatory etc., but those are all the qualities we've come to expect from BC, so I don't see anything particularly new here. It doesn't seem egregious enough by itself to warrant banning (any more than already warranted by his previous behavioral lapses), but, as you say, it really is a strong indication that he's not going to accept a new community sanction easily -- which is why I find it so amazing (and frustrating) that people find it necessary to continue to cater to him. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed, please dont place words and meanings that I did not intend with what I stated. Ed you obviously are unwilling to attempt a solution to this except for me to be banned. What point I was making was that no admin/ community has the right to modify my user interface. whether or not they remove simi-automatic scripts is up to them. But I have many other changes to my user interface that are non-editing. the point I was making was that blanking the monobook as some had stated was out of the question. if you actually cared about reaching a peaceful solution to this situation you could actually see how far I am willing to compromise to try to get this situation solved. the group of five users I selected are from both sides of the table. I would ask that if you have nothing productive to contribute to the solution I ask that you not muddy the waters with other non-productive discussion. βcommand 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but your statement implied an or else threat. I hope you aren't threatening to sock or vandalize if you find the solution not to your liking. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are placing words and meanings that I did not say. Please do not make assumptions about what I have said. I state what I mean and mean what I say. βcommand 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand: Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I care about you, personally, one way or the other. My only concern is with the good of the project, and my personal evaluation of everything I have read and seen regarding you is that I do not see that your value outwieghs the problems you cause. If I had my druthers, yes, you would be banned, because you are just not worth it, but I have not advocated that, because, clearly, many people see value in you, and the effort to ban you would be more disruptive than is worthwhile. Instead, what I have advocated, as you can easily see if you read  on this page, is that you be required to edit manually, without any automated or semi-automated assistance, exactly the same way that I have made every one of my paltry 21,000+ edits to the project.  Obviously, I don't see that as punitive -- I do it, after all -- but I do believe that you would not like it, that it's not a manner of working that you prefer. I don't particularly care. The evidence is that you are disruptive when you use bots, automated or semi-automated tools.  It may be that the evidence in the future would show that you are disruptive even with manual editing -- you certainly have the attitude that makes that possible, maybe even probable -- but I'm willing to take that chance, on the assurance of people of good will that you can still add value to the project.  In the meantime, can I suggest that everytime you post, you simply provide more evidence of the problem, and more fuel for the fire.  If you're interested in seeing a resolution, my own suggestion would be for you to lay low for a while and see what transpires.  I write in this manner to be as straightforward and crystal clear as you seem to prefer. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The evidence is also there that he is disruptive when he doesn't. Check his block log for what happened last month. I don't believe there were any bots involved there.--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is out of the question. The solution isn't up to you. You can either abide by the solution the community decides or cease editing here. What you feel is appropriate and what you'll accept is utterly meaningless. Your veiled threats (and don't try to pretend you didn't make them, because it only fuels the view of your behaviour) are clear indication that you're not ready to be part of this community after all that has gone on.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Crossmr here. IMO, BC's comment about admins who edit his monobook "not be [ing] tolerated" is a barely-veiled threat to initiate some form of war against admins who attempt to enforce any sanction that BC himself doesn't personally approve--which is completely unacceptable, I feel. BC, there is no potential solution that's out of play here; the community is able to lay down sanctions with or without your consent. While I'd like to see some sort of solution that allows you to keep editing here, displaying this sort of attitude does nothing to improve your position with the community, and honestly just digs the hole deeper, with the appearance of incivility present. Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Propose Community Ban for Betacommand - Patience exhausted
Note - this thread copied from the Main WP:ANI page in relation to this section Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

I've just scanned through the edit histories of the article and various talk pages and Betacommand calls Amsterdam a SPA in no less than 5 edit summaries and a vandal in 2. (In the interests of transparency, Amsterdam calls Betacommand a vandal in one edit summary, however this was after 4 of the SPA and the 2 vandal edit summaries from Betacommand). This is a spectacular failure to assume good faith, violates WP:BITE and is just plain instransigent behaviour that we just don't need on the project. Reverting a legitimate question on from Amsterdam on his talk page as vandalism is particulary nauseating. Time for this editor to be shown the door - the amount of grief and drama they create far outweighs any postive contributions. Exxolon (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * please note that the user has been indef checkuser blocked. as a known vandal. βcommand 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the point - at the time you made those edit summaries you had no way of knowing that. Being proved right in the end doesn't give you a free pass on your initial behaviour. Exxolon (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise (see above). Closing this as resolved. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the love of god, please don't append a ban discussion to this already useless thread. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think this thread shows an ongoing pattern of behaviour that should be addressed. You are free to disagree. Exxolon (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any further debate should be addressed to this already existing ANI subthread about Betacommand. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AN/B? 96.15.181.19 (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The subthread was marked resolved and is specifically about the capital medical center colleges. A discussion about a community ban for exhausting patience is long over due.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're trying our hardest to resolve this calmly like mature adults. We're currently working on a resolution here. It's these types of threads that make it so difficult to come to reasonable terms.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * heads up I was correct and it was obvious to anyone who looked that this was a disruptive SPA. please dont feed them any more. βcommand 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, just because someone is a vandal doesn't give you license to violate other policies and guidelines, you also didn't know that at the time of taking your action.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This little lot shows that even when the community is bending over backwards to reach a compromise (as being discussed above) Betacommand just carries on doing whatever the hell he wants. Look, 35 blocks (22 this year) says more than anything I can say that he's a liability and shouldn't be here anymore. Exxolon (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly wikipedo. Calling people nasty names and being a jerk is not grief and drama. Vandalising 200 pages is not grief and drama. Only admins have the ability to create drama, and Betacommand is not an admin. Don't pretend this page is about Betacommand, it's about you. 64.56.224.109 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. If Betacommand wanted to seriously damage Wikipedia, he wouldn't have any difficulty, and you know it.  The problem is that he damages Wikipedia without intending to.  Nonetheless, I'm opposed to a ban if he's willing to abide with reasonable restrictions.  However, this is his 2nd  3rd  4th  5th … "last chance".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedo"? That's a type of weapon used by wiki-submarines, ain't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again
See WP:ANI#New Betacommand... Do we open another slanging match between the "More trouble than he's worth!" and "He does good work, and he really cares about Wikipedia!" camps, or do we try to resolve this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I expected him to be especially careful while the community was coming to an agreement on what the new sanction would entail. That would be the prudent thing to do.  Still, we should wait until he has time to comment on this latest incident before adding more words in anger onto this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me give you a summary: "I didn't do it. I didn't do it on purpose. Its not my fault. The one armed man did it. I planned to fix it. Its not really that big of a deal is it? Come on guys...." I'm getting tired of the excuses and the chances.--Crossmr (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All but the last sentence is unnecessary, Crossmr. Jennavecia  (Talk)  12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I'm using my language to convey the absurdity of those who continue to defend him and those who continue to buy his excuses. Exaggeration, sarcasm, all well known traditional literary methods for conveying meaning in the English language, especially when logic and reason seem to fail.--Crossmr (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Understandable frustration, but it's probably best not to fuel the flames. A number of his defenders are also finally getting fed up, as there are only so many major screwups that an editor can be allowed, even an editor considered to be valuable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson has left messages for Ryan Postlethwaite, CBM and myself to get us together, as three editors with differing stances on Betacommand, to come up with stricter and more detailed restrictions for Betacommand. I'm not sure where this discussion is to take place, as I seem to be the only one who's been online since the posting of the message, but I'll be recommended restriction of all automated tools, semi or fully, for a period of time to possibly be discussed, if others are in agreement. If this is decided, hopefully before the block expires, then any such tools should be removed from his js file, and his access to other tools revoked. Jennavecia (Talk)  12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we leave him the "revert self" button? (Undo his own edit, with one click.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If a decision isnt made promptly, as in before the block expires, I think one of the four of you should remove any elements in his JS that performs a save operation, pending a decision from the four of you. If there is a revert-self JS routine, I think Arthur Rubin is spot on to suggest that he deserves to have that. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of purging and protecting as much of his .js files as is necessary to prevent him carrying out automated/semi-automated edits. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour of force-removing any .js files. It will have little consequence, since most of Beta's tools are python scripts. It seems designed more to irritate and punish Beta. Gimmetrow 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am most certainly not in favor of acting in a way that serves only to irritate or punish Beta. I value his contributions and I want to see him remain active on this project. To do that, however, these issues must end. Clearly, there are some issues with quality checking edits using automated/semi-automated tools. I am of the group that has defended him. The current restrictions did not specify semi-automated. Others argued that it doesn't matter, it's all semantics, etc. I felt that if it included semi-automated, such tools should be removed from his js file and his access to others, such as AWB, should be revoked. As he has now made additional poor edits while the discussion was ongoing, I feel it's in everyone's best interest, including his own, to remove his access to these tools in order to prevent what I fear is an eventual ban. Jennavecia  (Talk)  18:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New proposal
Someone can review Beta's proposed edits (the regexes, and some test edits) to make reasonably sure they don't have obvious problems. Doesn't need to be as formal as a bot request, but oversight would prevent the addition of clearly faulty regexes. What's approved would get posted somewhere, and Beta gets blocked if any other edits show up. Not sure if Beta will agree, but I'm willing to handle overseeing this because I think Beta needs an outlet to do scripting. Gimmetrow 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think the above generally follows Ryan Postlethwaite and my separate proposals above; BC to have his scripts independently verified before being run. Both of us would like both an undertaking that all other edits would be clearly manual, by means of a limit of X edits per Y minute period, to avoid any controversy over what is automatic, semi-automatic and manual (and therefore which ones need clearance before appearing in Wiki space.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Betacommand's scripts do have some positive consequences; the addition of reference sections to articles is clearly a plus, since otherwise, references won't get displayed in the article even if they are added in the wikitext. However, the problem is that Betacommand keeps changing what the scripts do, and adding new tasks that, even though well-intentioned, cause a lot of errors. He also has a pattern of not taking responsibility for errors in his scripts, and being unable to handle even the most well-meaning criticism. This has been an ongoing problem for years - he was also adding unapproved tasks to BetacommandBot when he was running that. Another problem is that he describes his tasks in very vague words ("general cleanup", "CfD work" etc.) I would not feel comfortable allowing Betacommand to perform a bot/script task with such a vague wording, which basically means that he can change the task at any time. Given that Betacommand does sometimes do valuable work, I could agree with a situation where Betacommand could run some script tasks with approval, but only on the following conditions:


 * 1) Betacommand must describe specifically what the task will do. General descriptions such as "general cleanup", "formatting" etc are not enough, we must know exactly on what conditions the script will operate and a list of all changes it will do (preferably by seeing the source code and regexes).
 * 2) The tasks must be submitted to the entire community, not only a small group such as the BAG. There must be substantial time to review both the intent (that the tasks are actually necessary) and the technical side (that the script will not break things due to bugs).
 * 3) There must be broad community consensus for running the script. No such things as "default allow if no objections within 24 hours".
 * 4) Any other editing must be done completely manually (i.e. Betacommand must type EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER of his edits into the MediaWiki edit box). Any use of scripts for tasks that have not passed this approval process will lead to a block. This includes even minor things such as "general cleanup".
 * 5) Any changes to how the script works must go through the approval process first.
 * 6) There must be a maximum edit rate (IMO it should be 5 edits per minute, and at the very least not more than 10)
 * 7) Betacommand must stop the scripts immediately, and revert any errors, if he notices a malfunction or if someone brings one to his attention.
 * 8) Betacommand must agree with these conditions before any approval is given, and there must be community consensus for them.


 * That said, I do not think that Betacommand should be allowed to run scripts at the present time. Based on his recent behaviour and comments, I do not see any indication that he takes responsibility for his latest category sorting error. In fact, he is behaving exactly like he uses to do when his scripts break something: just laying low for a while and not commenting on the issue, then starting to run the bots/scripts again when the ruckus dies down. IMO, Betacommand must first show some intent to change his fundamental attitude problem, acknowledge that his method of automatic editing has errors which make restrictions necessary, and explicitly agree to whichever restrictions the community finds necessary. Only then can we discuss allowing some script use in a controlled environment. Is he back? (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should wait for "the community" (currently, mostly yay/nay-sayers) for clarification, testing and approval of a script if there is one (or a few) trustworthy knowledgable editor(s) willing to do that task, such as Gimmetrow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Betacommand's scripts have had so many bugs, I think that we need many eyes to look over them for potential problems. We also need to make sure that the community actually wants that particular task to be performed. Remember that Betacommand's scripts don't just have technical problems, it's also that he decides to do things with them that are actually a bad idea. I don't necessarily mean that there must be an ANI thread everytime Beta wants to run a task, but the process must be open, and anyone must be allowed to participate and raise concerns if necessary. Is he back? (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose What Wikipedia problem does this solve? What do we need done by Betacommand that's worth the hassle? Running 'bots on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.  If Betacommand wants to develop software, there are plenty of projects on SourceForge that need developers.  Developing code in an environment with source control, testing, and peer review would do more to improve his programming skills (and communication skills) than allowing him to run 'bots on Wikipedia. Also, we're here at AN/I because Betacommand did some bot-like things on his main account, and stronger sanctions were being considered. Why are we even discussing at this time weakening sanctions set in place due to previous problems?   --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose a thousand times oppose. Why must he be given this outlet on wikipedia? People around here act like its our job to take care of him. Its impossible for him to function here without devoting significant resources to monitor him, sanction him, and then have the massive discussions that erupt when he screws up yet again. All for a person who several people recognize won't take responsibility and can't handle it when called to task for his mistakes. I'd like one person to stand up and explain just why it is that this project needs someone around whom the community has to scrutinize, check, double check, rubber stamp and verify every single thing they do and then put up with his abrasive attitude on top of that.--Crossmr (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...because... because if we don't get an agreement between BC and the community which includes running scripts, then BC will continue until he is banned, and when he is banned ( this is my opinion only, never discussed or disclosed before ) he may come back and troll the encyclopedia using bot scripts. He is obsessive enough, has an unrealistically high regard for his skills as a bot writer, an unfortunate attitude toward critics, and regard for the project that if he were removed from it he might take a form of "revenge" that would be the more destructive for his detailed knowledge of it. In the meanwhile, there are volunteers willing to help him fulfill his wishes in helping the encyclopedia so why not use them? Lastly, whatever problems we have with BC it should never be considered that he acts in any way except what he believes to be of benefit to the project - there just happens to be disagreement over the net worth of his efforts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * wow. I honestly can't even believe what I'm reading. In summary: If we don't let him get his way, he might come back and vandalize the encyclopedia. I don't know if you've noticed or not but wikipedia has been vandalized by more than 1 or 2 individuals in the past. We've handled them to date. My position is ban him now. If he wants to come back and vandalize the project as revenge deal with him appropriately. Not that we really need any more evidence to demonstrate that the community has had enough of him, the idea that we would anticipate he would come back and attack the project for being cut off is yet another reason he should be cut loose now because it shows that his motivation isn't what is best for the project, but his own personal motivation. The project is the people and he can't seem to work with them. I see no evidence that he's really doing what is best for the project and if he really thinks it is, it is not in sync with the community and he needs to be stopped from doing it. As I've pointed out, he has burnt his good faith assumptions with his unwillingness to make even basic efforts to work with the community that you claim he's trying to edit in the best interests of. Not to mention the abrasive behaviour, threats against sanctions, etc We don't assume it blindly and he's done nothing to garner any extension on that.--Crossmr (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am familiar with the concept of vandals... but I am pretty sussed at discerning consensus, too. There is not presently the will to ban BC while there are people prepared to try and help him, but there is consensus to try and resolve the matter of the problem edits. If the consensus changed to "ban" and my fears are born out then I am going to be one of those swinging the banhammer, but in the meantime I am going to try to get as much support for the raft of sanctions being considered as is possible. I don't know if you have considered the irony of you being so adamant in having BC banned, for your view of what is best for the encyclopedia, when the problem with BC is his inability to see how his actions are detrimental to the same project, or that you are prepared for WP to be disrupted in a different manner than it is now on the basis that the possible subsequent damage is "less" than what it appears now. I'm trying to argue for what I now consider the "no/least" damage option.
 * Of course, that isn't to say that you are wrong and I am right - and that you shouldn't expound your views, but I think we should allow each other the full range of opinion and possible consequences of our decisions and weigh the pros and cons of all options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I see one or two individuals willing to help him, they are clearly in the minority and even past supporters of him are now no longer supporting him. Consensus and will doesn't mean an overwhelming 100% majority. I might express the desire to get willyonwheels back on track, that doesn't mean we'd unblock him and give him any latitude because one person wants to vouch for him. If he decides to use his coding skills and knowledge of the project to try and hurt it, there are remedies both on and off wikipedia for dealing that. The community should continue to bend over for someone like that. While I've seen 2 or 3 individuals still supporting him, I also see the community having swung strongly against him now at this point. THere is absolutely no reason we should be trying to mentor someone simply because we fear they might attack us. It is completely the wrong attitude.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I enter this discussion with some degree of trepidation, as I don't think I've waded into anything like this before - certainly nothing that approaches this level of heat and drama. I've never interacted with this user at all, so I have no irons in the fire, but I have to say that I'm shocked by this whole situation if what I'm seeing is correct. We have a user that's under sanction due to certain problems, and who's essentially been stripped of being allowed to run their bot. Unfortunately, there's also dispute about exactly what that sanction prohibits him from doing. When I look at his block log, I see that he's been blocked no fewer than 12 times in 2008 alone, for various reasons ranging from 3RR violations, to incivility, to violation the sanction. About half of these blocks have been removed prior to running full term, and many of the summaries indicate that the user has apologized or that the script he's running has been fixed. But in the last two months alone:


 * 1) July 5 - 31 hour block, removed after 2 hours
 * 2) July 6 - 31 hour block, removed after 1 hour
 * 3) July 6 - 48 hour block, ran full term
 * 4) July 15 - 72 hour block, ran full term
 * 5) July 28 - 1 week block, ran full term
 * 6) August 21 - 72 hour block, removed after 30 hours
 * 7) August 28 - 24 hour block
 * I'm blown away. I'd say that I hope I'm given the same leash in the future, except that I what I really hope is that I'll never get so removed from developing consensus and being civil that I'd need that much leash. As John Nagle said above, running bots on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. For that matter, editing Wikipedia at all is a privilege. It's a responsibility that I take very seriously and it feels to me like this user has abused it far too often. Regardless of the value of their contributions, with all the time, effort, and discussion that's gone into the 'maintenance' of this user, I can't believe that there's a net benefit to their continued participation. Mlaffs (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as well. In the earlier kerfluffle I was willing to try and compromise on this issue for the best interest of all involved - but the fact that a new ANI has popped up already is indicative of a deeper problem.  Mlaffs is absolutely correct in saying that running bots (or scripts) is a privilege and not a right, and one that BC seems to have abused - whether intentionally or not.  While some of his work may have been useful, undoubtedly, his actions have demonstrated - repeatedly - that he cannot really be trusted with the ability to run bots/automated scripts any longer.  This most recent problem is yet more evidence to that effect.  If BC were to have gone about editing Wikipedia in a way that were within the restrictions placed upon him I can see where he might regain the lost trust and then we might consider restoring some measure of this privilege to him, but his block record shown above - in just the last two months - that he is incapable of acting in a manner in accordance with his restriction and thus has not regained the community's trust.  Let's be honest.  BC has been given an extraordinary amount of latitude with his trespasses as far as the restriction has been concerned, and he has continued to act in a problematic and defiant manner within that latitude.  Any proposal to broaden the wiggle room that we've already allowed him flies in the face of reason. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Betacommand has gotten most everybody mad at him, in part due to his in-your-face attitude. Ask yourself this: Supposing Betacommand had the world's sweetest disposition, and were still messing up this way repeatedly - How would it be handled? I'm thinking that, at the very least, his ability to mess things up would be taken away. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose also. To the limited extent I've seen Betacommand in action, this user is not only incompetent at using automated tools without causing more problems than the edits are worth, but he's also unwilling to recognise this or even to enter into any sort of meaningful discussion about this problem. I don't think that huge drama threads and elaborate legalistic restrictions are an effective way to deal with problem editors. Blocking is. I'm amenable to indef-block Betacommand the next time he causes this sort of automated disruption. He appears to have received quite enough chances to stop on his own.  Sandstein   17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why bend over backwards to work with Betacommand when he makes no effort to work with us?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (and sort of oppose) I think the earlier idea of letting a small group work out a clear compromise is still the way to go as the current discussion will be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I've asked CBM, Ryan and Jennavecia to work this out (possibly on MedCom's private wiki. Let's give them a few days to come up with clearly stated and clearly motivated restrictions. This whole thread is rich in ideas but very poor in converging solutions so let's close it and let three experienced, cool-headed admins sift through it all while everyone here enjoys a nice cup of cocoa. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So in the meantime, is Beta banned from making semi-automated edits and using scripts, and from making edits that appear to be such? Something needs to be written up for WP:Editing restrictions. Franamax (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If these three editors agree to work this out, I think it would be reasonable to ask Betacommand (nicely) to stick to strictly manual editing during the process so that they can work in peace without all these threads lengthening beyond reason. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would be willing to work with the committee. I do think Betacommand should take it easy in the meantime. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - there is a point where the trouble that one user causes outweighs their benefit to the project. Beta's benefit to the project is actually quite large, if truth be told, but the problems he causes far, far outweight them, and this page alone is good proof of that. Unfortunatly enough is enough - we should no longer be pandering to him, we should be activley restricting his desruptive behaviour. Talk Islander 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Again, I really don't see the value in going out of the way to keep BC happy. If we're doing it because he's the sort of person who would come back and damage WP if he doesn't get his way, then clearly he's not dedicated to the best interests of the project, and should be banned.  I don't necessarily believe that is the case about him, and I am greatly concerned about the damage (let alone mere "disruption") that would be done to the community by a serious attempt to ban him at this point. With that out of the way, some sort of compromise has to be found, but any attempt to soften the Sam Korn solution is clearly not going to fly any more than banning is.  I think that really should be clear to everyone by now.  Obviously, I favor my own "manual editing" proposal, but I'm not married to it.  If an unbiased committee can come up with a different solution that navigates through all these hazards, I'm all ears, but I do predict that by this time, given the contentious history of disruption to the project by BC, it is extremely unlikely that consensus will be found for a solution the purpose of which is to "let BC be BC" and do automated or semi-automated or script-assisted or whatever edits. The feelings against that are just too strong, as strong as the feelings against banning. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ad hoc committee proposal
User:Jennavecia, User:Ryan Postlethwaite, User:Betacommand, and I would like to propose the following as a set restrictions going forward. These attempt to clarify the restrictions about automated editing, wider review of tasks, and edit rate.


 * Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the new content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not added any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
 * Rationale: this replaces the restriction on automated/semi-automated tools, by clarifying that the desired goal is for the content of each edit to be reviewed individually.


 * Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion.
 * Rationale: this will give all editors a chance to review the proposal.


 * Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

We hope that this updated, clarified set of restrictions can find consensus here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support having being involved in discussion.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support based on LessHeard vanU comment below. That's a strong enough hard line for me to accept one final chance... We have 2 simultaneous proposals going on here Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Frankly Betacommand shouldn't be involved in recommending anything in regards to how to limit his behaviour. He should be banned from editing until the community decides on proper sanctions and only unbanned when he takes responsibility for his previous behaviour and agrees completely to abide by those sanctions with the understanding that any violation of those sanctions will result in an indef ban as the patience of the community is exhausted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that if you compare these restrictions to the existing ones, you'll find the proposed ones to be more clear about the types of edits we'd like to see, and more clear about disallowing automated or semi-automated editing that doesn't include the review of each edit. Betacommand's agreement to the restrictions is a positive development, as it makes him more responsible to follow them, as well as moving towards dispute resolution. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I compared them, and I consider any further editing to be an insult to the community for having put up with him for this long. The special treatment of this user has to stop.--Crossmr (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These sort of comments are not constructive to the discussion. Please keep your own comments civil while arguing for civility in others. Thank you. Jennavecia  (Talk)  03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure they are. You only consider them not constructive because you don't believe BC should be banned indefinitely. We're sitting here having a discussion about how to sanction a user, that can and should include the possibility of a ban. As evidenced by the comments in the preceding section, there are several community members (whose number are continually growing) that are fed up and have had enough of him. For him to continue to edit in the face of that growing number IS an insult considering how long this problem has gone on. Several users have come out and all but said that. We don't go out of our way in these kinds of discussions to mince words. Hiding how we truly feel about a situation is what isn't constructive.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind the next time Beta speaks his mind. Jennavecia  (Talk)  03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is support for what he says fine. If he is just insulting some user's intelligence for their failure to "get" what he says or threatening administrators who may enforce a discussed sanction that is another thing. Do you deny that several supporters of his changed their mind above and several users both here and on AN/I have express exasperation and exhaustion with his behaviour and some users opinion that he should be given just more and more chances to change?--Crossmr (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would I deny that? I'm one that has historically contributed to these discussions as a Beta apologist, but I have found myself growing weary of his mistakes. However, to state that these efforts, and his continued contributions, are an insult to the project is not necessary, and it's not constructive. Otherwise, I find your dialogue to be helpful, which is why I've spoken only of this one comment. Jennavecia  (Talk)  03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point with "insult to the community" is simply that. After all this time, the vast majority are growing weary with his mistakes. To the point of exhaustion and exasperation. If this were a situation that materialized over the weekend, it would be early to call it an insult to the community. But given the sheer number who have complained about him over the years, and the fact that it has gone on for years and when ever his supporters are finally crossing the fence, you have to come to realize the situation. To some his continued editing is completely incomprehensible, and to those I would submit that it is indeed an insult considering that every time he's given another chance he messes it up and just caries on as he was. I saw someone else describe it as shoving their middle finger in the face of the community. Yes "insult to the community" is a strong word, but reading some of the recent statements it looks like we're there for some.--Crossmr (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument, assuming he were permitted to continue to edit here in the interim this proposal fails to address two other key problems with Betacommand. His abrasive attitude and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his behaviour. I could agree to this in theory if language were to be included enforcing a strict civility patrol (anything resembling a threat, insult, etc gets him blocked for an increasing time) AND he takes responsibility for his past behaviour and apologizes for it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding civility parole to the proposal. Jennavecia  (Talk)  03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which still doesn't address his responsibility. Several editors have raised the issue of his failure to take responsibility for what he does. Blaming tools, other users, trying to pass it off as no big deal, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to get beta to say, "I screwed up. It was my fault," isn't going to happen and can't be forced. Just go with laser tight sanctions. If he causes further problems, after one final lockdown like this, he can later blame whomever he wants from behind escalating blocks. It's not about winning on either side. rootology  ( T ) 03:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't about winning, his failure to take responsibility is one of the key things that is driving the issue here and that has turned the situation in to what it is. If he'd taken responsibility for this and seen it was his fault, this situation may never have reached where it is. He always denied anything was his fault and a small group of users always validated him on that, so he continued to act the way he did because he never saw a problem with it. I can't speak for what is going on inside his head, but that is how its appeared to some users here. He doesn't think he did anything wrong and some people validate him on that by giving him support or unblocking him early. I might also make a suggestion that part of the solution around BC is that NO early unblocks should be performed without full discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last rfar instructed Betacommand "To remain civil and to refrain from making personal attacks against any contributor". If there has been significant civility problems that havent been aggravated by the anti-BC people, I think it would be best if a simple request for clarification is initiated to change that from an instruction to a more hard hitting remedy.  The reason for this is that the wording of a civility sanction is best left to the approved by the arbs, and civility remedies would be best enforced by WP:AE.  It might be a good idea to leave the civility aspect until this ongoing "automated edit" issue has been resolved. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * that havent been aggravated by the anti-BC people again immaterial. I made this point a couple days ago. Last I checked WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTE contain no language that makes personal attacks or uncivil behvaiour acceptable if someone is first mean to you. This is just another line of thinking to excuse his behaviour and validate it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a more hard-hitting remedy, the "Sam Korn solution" which specifies "He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block". The ArbCom actually declined Beta 3 because the "community is dealing with it" (approx. wording) - here we are people, that is part of the restriction in place, we are the community. And as Crossmr says (and oh please Crossmr, tone down the rhetoric just a tiny bit so we can all actually discuss things non-stridently) pre-incivil excuses not post-incivil. Franamax (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The idea of special treatment for problem childs needs to be terminated. Support on the condition that blocks for violating this escalate with each incident: 24 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months, 4 months, 1 year, etc., to actually encourage compliance. rootology  ( T ) 02:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst we informed Betacommand before posting here, he wasn't involved in creating the proposals. We created them ourselves.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The only special treatment here is a severe set of restrictions which, in my opinion, give Betacommand no new abilities compared to previous restrictions but have the advantage of clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBM (talk • contribs)
 * The special treatment is some users unending need to coddle betacommand when pretty much any one else who treated wikipedia like this would have been blocked unquestionably a long time ago.--Crossmr (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, having been involved in the discussion. Jennavecia  (Talk)  02:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, very reasonable. Only good can come of it if followed. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to a statement above, we do not have two simultaneous proposals. I made a proposal at AN/I to the specific end of allowing some time for this group's ideas to come to fruition, and specifically to end when this group derived community consensus for its proposals. Franamax (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I have to say that I'm not terribly optimistic about its success, but this seems worth trying. I do agree that some reference and "hook" should be made to the Arbcom civility requirement as well. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal didn't address that requirement; my understanding is that it would remain in force. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding as well, but I'd be happier if the community sanctions made mention of it, or even integrated it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (sigh, he's making more comments) Just casting a brief wikilawyering eye over this, although I really wish to support, I don't think I can yet.
 * In the first bullet, the three "must" adjectives are a given - of course I did that! "checking the actual content that will be saved" is not the same as "looking at the rendered content of the article and looking at each spot where I made a change in the wiki-text, to be sure I did it right". And "changes have not added any problems" is just not the same as "fixed a problem" - this elides previous controversies where Beta defended himself (and was defended) on the basis that he just changed an existing problem into a different problem. WTF? I spend stinkin' hours on trying to figure out how to fix dumb stuff.
 * Second bullet, Beta must propose a task and wait 24 hours - but nothing in there about what happens when 45 editors don't like it? Is this committee going to give the OK based on the VPR discussion? Beta will use his own judgement?
 * Actually I'd like to comment on this and say he shouldn't go ahead with anything unless he has community support. If sufficient support hasn't materialized in 24 hours (maybe only 1 person has commented) then he should wait. Someone somewhere mentioned something about how a lack of input shouldn't be seen as consensus for him.--Crossmr (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it?I think if we've learned anything so far is that it needs to be said. The current proposal says he has to wait 24 hours. What happens if there isn't that much input, or support isn't that clear for him. Does that get interpreted as "he waited 24 hours and went ahead with it anyway so I guess he did what was required". This current page blew up over the wrangling between automatic and semi-automatic.--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support clarifying the proposal (which is, always, open to change) to clarify that there must be clear support (not necessarily unanimous) at VPR. Given Betacommand's reputation and the visibility of VPR, I don't anticipate there will be a lack of feedback there. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear support as judged by whom? A crat (I endorse) or a majority of the ad hoc committee (I endorse)? Other criteria? Franamax (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest just reading the plain consensus of the discussion on VPR, the same way we evaluate every other proposal on VPR. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aggh. Sorry Carl, but that inspires no confidence in me at all. If consensus can be read so simply, why do we have bureaucrats and admins? Think how much salary we could save! To whose judgement will the decision be left? More fundamentally, does the ad-hoc committee see it's role as ongoing, or simply as crafting a one-time solution of verbiage? Is this simply a new set of wording to be tossed once again to the general editorship for interpretation? Franamax (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Third bullet - OK, I respect the spirit of the restriction, but there's more to it. As written, 4 edits per minute looks to me like 4 x 60 x 24 >= 5000 edits per day? Keeping in mind that (if it was me) of course all the edits were "manually, carefully, individually" reviewed etc., the restriction on semi-automatic tools is lifted, I posted my intentions somewhere where no approval is explicitly required, I get to define for myself which "tasks" affect more than 25 pages, I am a pattern-matcher (which I am), I am a permutation-spotter (which I am), and I am a heavy-duty coder of algorithms (sometimes also true) - I see there the possibility of at least 1000 edits a day.
 * Those are technical quibbles, perhaps best ignored. I'd like to see a little more rigour though. Franamax (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand would have to propose any large-scale edits on VPR. The edit rate and the requirement of 24 hours' discussion go together to help avoid any unintended consequences. And the manual verification makes it hard to do 4000 edits a day. I doubt that VPR would approve a 4000 edit project at this time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first bullet, the goal was to write it in a way that is enforceable. We can tell if his edits add an error that should have been detected by content review; that would be an objective reason to block, so hopefully Betacommand will avoid it. On the other hand, if there are errors in the page unrelated to the edit being made, even careful editors will often miss them. The discussion on VPR should also help to draw out possible problems with a proposed series of edits. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And, although I don't think it needs to be said: I am certain that, if Betacommand proposes something on the very visible WP:VPR, it will not go 24 hours without comment. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Full marks to the users who got their hands dirty in crafting this proposal. I like the idea, and it definitely feels more restrictive and less open to 'interpretation' than what's currently in place. However, there desperately needs to be some form of sanction if he violates the restrictions incorporated as part of the proposal. I'll say it again - 12 blocks in 8 months, escalating at the longest to one week, absolutely blows my mind. If he is going to "agree" to this proposal, then the consequences of violating it have to be clear and, as far as I'm concerned, nuclear. It's past the point of escalating blocks for further violations. Indefinite block, ban, whatever you want to call it - this has to be a last chance. Mlaffs (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The community generally avoids "one strike and you're out" solutions, since they are too vulnerable to gaming. But I think it is crystal clear that, if this proposal were accepted, given that Betacommand agrees to follow it, there would be objective grounds for longer blocks and/or discussions about banning. However, the goal at present is to find a solution that will avoid that scenario. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as workable compromise. It would also be good to reemphasize to him that he's on civility parole. Some of his veiled threats and insults following this last incident have been way out of line (just today, ). He has to understand that he has lost the respect and trust of many editors, including many who used to be willing to defend him. Until he accepts that much of this exasperation is warranted and fueled by his attitude (rather than rooted in his enforcement of image policy as he still regularly claims), he will not be getting that trust and respect back. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support give it a shot, if it doesn't work we can resume the witch hunt. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 05:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the"Betacommand must wait 24 hours after a post on VPR, then he can start" part. This needs to be changed to say that Betacommand must wait until there is agreement at VPR to run the task, per concerns above. I would even suggest a minimum discussion period of 48 hours - what's the rush? Also, the proposal should say something about civility parole, and make it clear that violation = block. Will support if these concerns are addressed. Is he back? (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for this or amended variation thereof; because if this is violated we can go straight to community ban - and I will remove/protect all tools, execute the block (and revert and block any admin who unblocks without unequivocal consensus, to the point of wheelwar/ArbCom) and thumb my nose at any threat of "retaliation". LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is heading in the direction of making the existing restrictions more clear without removing them. I am not to keen on the second bullet however, and would like to see it clarified further - said task should not be run by Betacommand if there is significant opposition to him doing so.  I am aware that there will be significant opposition until his combined programming and people skills improve.  GRBerry 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (conditional, as it's still under modification). I doubt he will follow the clear wording of this one any more than he will follow the clear wording of previous sanctions, but perhaps everyone else will agree that his violations will be clear, this time.  As for [User:Is he back?|Is he back?]], he can still be blocked for disruption even if he follows the rules here, if his edits are disruptive.  This just provides a bright line for violations.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Copied from below) Conditional support the committee proposal with one amendment': adding defined penalties for infractions and a civility clause. The former to reduce drama on AN/ANI so there is no ambiguity, the latter as well as to start getting him inline with our civility policy. Looking at all the energy expended over the last year on one person, a lot of other things could have been done instead of this. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove item one. It's meaningless under the circumstances since Betacommand already signed up to a near-identical restriction when he got access to AWB: it's listed in bold on the WP:AWB check page. Whether item two will achieve anything, only time will tell. I think the record makes it very clear that Betacommand cannot use automated or semi-automated or otherwise non-standard tools in a responsible way and that no restriction short of a total ban on such things will help, but it can't hurt too much to try it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I disagree. Given BC's history, there is absolutely no harm, and potential some value, in having him confirm restrictions multiple times. That is why I request, as did a number of other people, that this proposal should include a reference to the civility restrictions he is already subject to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  03:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Observation Item 1 really is much better than earlier approaches, which concentrated on mechanical issues. But the wording "review the new content of each edit before it is made" implies that only insertions of material have to be reviewed, not deletions.  I don't think that's what was intended. 75.62.4.102 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated proposal from the ad hoc committee
Based off of the discussion above, the proposal has been updated to, hopefully, meet the concerns noted.


 * Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the new changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.


 * Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.


 * Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.


 * Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

Does this better address concerns? Jennavecia (Talk)  15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I was overly concerned with the original proposal, I think this is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So what has to happen now to make this happen? Post a new thread on AN? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if this addresses the concerns expressed above. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All except the concern mentioned by the last anon edit before it was made. Does "new content" imply that BC only has to manually review additions, or does he also have to review content removals, too?  Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed "new" to "change". That should make it clear it's any change, addition or removal. I'm also going to go ahead and add a thread to AN and also the restrictions page. If there are any necessary updates needed, they can, of course, still be changed as needed. Jennavecia  (Talk)  16:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Having worked with Jennavecia on this second proposal, i obviously support it.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility parole? If you can get the first three items to work as designed Betacommand should not have to face righteously pissed-off editors and there will be much less likelihood of him going postal. Please, no civility parole. Fix the underlying problem and there will be much less opportunity for drama and incivility. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no user is ever exempt from civility. The fact that we allow weird exemptions for senior people because some won't enforce on them is a problem. If someone takes advantage of that to where it becomes a problem, this sort of thing is just a clearer warning to please stop or else. Its fine. No one should get a free ride on that, whether they joined up today or four years back. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Angus, what do you actually want us to do here? People won't support without a civility restriction, now you won't support it with a civility restriction - We're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't. People are going to have to compromise on what they want here, else we're going to have no firm restriction against BC and we'll continue in limbo for a long time. The earlier three points of the proposal reduce the possibility of gaming significantly, and the civility restriction is mererly a back up in case things do happen, or good faith questions lead to beta snapping. Does it do any harm having the restriction in place, just in case?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What I would like, in the best of all possible worlds, is for Betacommand to be perfect, but I will settle for him editing carefully so as not to cause monthly dramas at ANI. This can be achieved by points two and three, and, with the quibble I raised earlier about it being expected of all automagic editing, point one. Once that's been achieved, then you can think about sending Betacommand to wikicharm school. I'm not the only person who thinks civility paroles are rather a waste of time; jpgordon said just that earlier today. Given that Betacommand has stepped on a lot of toes over the years, the civility parole will inevitably be used as a stick to poke him with. That's always what happens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Beta himself had no problem with this to Jenna in IRC. So, theres no problem then. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no place for special treatment in terms of ignoring the requirements for civility, as you quite rightly say, there's equally no need for special treatment in terms of "civility paroles" either. If, when their problematic behaviour is pointed out to them, an experienced editor continues to act in the same way, they can expect to be blocked. But this is not what's been at issue here. Betacommand's actions cause the problem, not his words. His general unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions and frequently incivil replies may aggravate matters, but they are not the cause. I am not suggesting Betacommand be given any special treatment - hence my opposition to item one earlier - but I am realistic in my expectations. Let's fix one thing at a time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if he has no problem with it, then neither should we. Part of the bigger problem is that some random person unilaterally almost always undoes consensus blocks. This makes that a very bad party foul for the admin acting out of line--one admin, no matter who, doesn't get to trump everyone else. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The civility parole stems from the ArbCom decision. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I'm still ok with this. As for the point on civility, I think most would agree that BC is somewhat prone to overreaction and that his overuse of snappy edit summaries and vandalism warnings has in many cases escalated trivial incidents into full-blown drama. So it does not seem unreasonable to require that he tone it down a bit. But there are problems inherent to such restrictions: first, we don't want admins blocking BC for trivial reasons, second we don't want BC taking punches unnecessarily. I think this would be best solved if BC was more willing to recognize his responsibilities in the escalation of disputes through vandalism warnings, troll labelling, overuse of CAPSLOCK and so on, and was more aware that, in any conflict, both sides start by thinking they are right. With that in mind, I think community enforced civility parole might be a recipe for disastrous cycles of blocks ("he was incivil") and unblocks ("wasn't that bad, the wiki was not in danger"). Something along the lines of "BC is requested to avoid escalating disputes through uncivil remarks, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" would make it clearer to admins that we don't want blocks-on-sight but, as step 1, honest requests for BC to defuse situations on his own (and I think most agree that he really needs to learn how to do this). It would also make it clear to potential unblocking admins that blocks imposed on these grounds are legitimate ways to force BC to use patience, cool-headed explanations and empathy with the enemy to defuse conflicts on his own, before fifteen different people jump in. (oh and please, please, do not reply to this with rants about BC's incivility: let's keep the discussion productive.) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No rant, but it is a fact that practically any other user with BC's record of incivility would have been permanently blocked by now, so it seems a little unnecessary to worry about him being blocked for "trivial" reasons. First, he's already under civility parole from ArbCom, second, there are numerous admins willing to unblock him if the reason for the block isn't substantial.  If we try to make this proposal cover every possible contingency, it's never going to be finished, and never going to be implemented. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, not that I really find it a cause for celebration, a number of users with appalling records of incivility are still around (and I'll keep those names to myself). The point I'm trying to make is that different users cross the line in different ways and in different circumstances. In Beta's case (correct me if I'm wrong) the issue has always been his difficulty in handling complaints/questions and his "I'm right dammit!" refusal to envision the possibility that he's either wrong or at least not obviously right. The way I see it is a) the community has lost confidence in BC's ability to run and oversee bot tasks and b) it has no confidence that BC can defuse situations. Solution for a): don't do bot tasks until someone has vetted it carefully. I propose as a solution for b): don't get into disputes that you can't resolve without screaming at someone. I actually find this more meaningful than "civility parole" whose vagueness always leads to problems. Plus I do believe in people changing: BC might realize in the long term that screaming wastes a lot of energy. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your optimism re: BC changing is laudable - I mean that, it's not sarcasm - but I can't share it. Not knowing anything about him, his real life personality, his situation, his age, etc., I can only go by his record here, and I find nothing there to indicate to me that he's capable of being anything but what he's been in the past. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling it would take a "short, sharp, shock" to provoke a change, and this proposal is not that.  I support it, and it's encouraging that BC says he can abide by it, but I don't see it as the ultimate solution to the perenniel Betacommand problem, not as long as people are willing to make excuses for him, and to continue to give him chance after chance after chance.  Unless I'm totally off the mark, it'll take something much more drastic to cause BC to alter his behavior pattern. That being what it is, I still believe that this proposal, as is, is worth a try, and, like others here, I would have difficulty doing so if there was not a civility component. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I'm a laudable kind of guy. :-) Just wanted to note that I support some sort of civility component: all I'm saying is that "civility parole" sounds like "shut up" whereas we really want to say "change your business model". (and of course "shut up if you can't do that!") Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What concerns me is that with the amount of wikilawyering being applied on BC's behalf, if we go with some equivalent of your "change your business model" approach, then when BC does something uncivil outside of the bounds of the usual problem areas (i.e. complaints etc.), people will say "But the proposal only talks about X and not Y and this was Y." I kind of think it needs to be broader rather than sharply focused. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you'll again think I'm crazy but still... Why were there wheel wars? If you go to people who blocked BC, they'll say "because he messed up". If you go to people who unblocked him, they'll say "because people get on his back to much". What we have is a step forward not so much because of the clarity in the language (which doesn't hurt) but because the wording was agreed upon after an extensive and (after some time) patient discussion between these two factions. My hope is that this will a) make BC understand the expectations b) avoid blocks that are motivated by measures too subjective to stand uncontested c) prevent poorly motivated unblocks. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would sure be great if you are right. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The civility clause was added because it seemed to be a concern for several of those participating in these discussions. As with the first points, it's more of a clarification and strengthening of the Arbitration Committee's ruling. Jennavecia (Talk)  14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough already - send it to RFAR
Beta obviously doesn't care a whit about what anyone here has to say. He's threatened sanctions or repercussions against any admin even touching his monobook.js, as if he had any authority to do such a thing. A dayish after the last fracas he caused is resolved, right back to it. Here's a proposal: he edits for a year like a normal human being. If that's not acceptable, send him to RFAR. He has no authority over the community. No one user does. No one gets special treatment, especially after jamming a middle finger at the community like this. I mean, honestly.

Why is this one user exempt from blocks that any other user would be subject to? rootology ( T ) 02:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "like a normal human being" mean? Any sanctions that are placed need to be enforceable, which means they can only refer to things that we can see in edits made on the wiki. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I use twinkled to revert vandals and xfd stuff. I'm opening this window to edit by hand. Like 99% of us do. Why can't Beta just edit with absolutely no tools? It's obvious that as soon as he touches any tools or mass high speed updates, this is just an endless problem, right? That's my question--even though multiple people and admins have told a "vested" user to stop, he doesn't, and even threatens to RFAR and sanction admins that threaten to stop him, as if he somehow were of a higher rank than other users. Every time this happens, its like spraying everyone with a bottle of poison. No one is above community sanction. rootology  ( T ) 03:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposal above specifically addresses the issue of tools and high speed editing by requiring that each and every edit be manually reviewed, and limiting edit speed far below what can easily be achieved with a tabbed browser. This goes beyond any previous restrictions I am aware of. I agree that several of Betacommand's comments recently were out of line. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I changed to support on the condition that blocks are required to increase in length for each violation. That HAS to be included. rootology  ( T ) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He is probably seething at the moment, but I am sure that if the community agrees to delicately remove the JavaScript tools which have caused problems, and an admin who he respects does the deed, he wont retaliate. This is one matter where there is plenty of community understanding of the problem.  The only two differences in moving it to rfar is that 1) the enormous discussion will happen on the evidence and workshop page instead of here, and there wont be much gained from that, and 2) the decision will be put in the hands of a few, for good or ill. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:EGO. That's all I have to say about whether someone seethes. People are here to do right, or else... rootology  ( T ) 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned even if we let the committee come up with a solution it should still be debated before its applied. There is no sense in having a backroom committee come up with a solution and then apply it without discussion of all users it will effect. Any sanctions placed against BC effect the whole community. Otherwise we're just turning them in to a temporary arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our proposal is just that - a proposal. It has no weight until it gathers consensus. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referencing john's last few words the decision will be put in the hands of a few, for good or ill., that made it sound as though what the committee decided would be binding.--Crossmr (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for John, but I am certain I was not announcing a binding decision. The main benefit of discussing in a small group before writing a proposal is to work out any immediate kinks, so discussion can skip them, and to ensure that if there is agreement with the proposal, Betacommand has said he will abide by it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I make one tiny suggestion? Sanctions for no user should be crafted in a way appealing or acceptable to those under sanction--that shouldn't be a way of approaching it, it's not a political negotiation. Politics don't apply to sanctions. If someone's ego gets stomped slightly, that's not something to worry about. I know that sounds shitty, but it is what it is. rootology  ( T ) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "the decision will be put in the hands of a few" was referring to putting the decision in the hands of arbcom, as opposed to what Carl proposed above, which is put into the hands of the community to endorse/discussion/tweak. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Having spoken with Beta in the last few minutes, I would not characterize him as seething in the least. He's actually quite calm, and open to accepting these changes and moving forward. He doesn't come off at all upset to me... and I've seen him upset. As far as the crafting of the proposal. Betacommand was shown the proposal before it was offered for community approval because it seemed pointless to present it to the community if Betacommand was not willing to abide by it. To save time for everyone, we went to him first to ensure he was open to these restrictions. Luckily, it was a smooth discussion, as noted above, and he is ready to move forward. Jennavecia (Talk)  03:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. Excellent. Fully support, then. rootology  ( T ) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * His willingness to abide by it is immaterial. The community has to develop a sanction it is happy with. This was my point above. He can either abide by it or cease editing here. This isn't a negotiation with him, and if the committee thinks it is, they're going about it the wrong way.--Crossmr (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We made that point already. I'm just curious, does Beta have any objection (that objection of course is irrelevant) with escalating blocks? rootology  ( T ) 03:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did we? This because it seemed pointless to present it to the community if Betacommand was not willing to abide by it. To save time for everyone, we went to him first to ensure he was open to these restrictions doesn't sound like we did. It sounds like the committee decided on something and then got his approval on it before showing it to the community. That isn't the way this works. The committee picks something, the community debates it and the final result is applied to betacommand. If he can't abide it, he's banned/blocked as appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there evidence the Committee vetted a sanction past him? That would be outrageously naive if they did since it sends the message that some users are more important than others. rootology  ( T ) 03:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The goal here is dispute resolution - if the sanctions already in place (which are patently unclear, leading to this discussion) are replaced by clearer sanctions that are no less restrictive but Betacommand is willing to follow, that's an ideal resolution.
 * As for escalating blocks, I believe they are standard procedure. The difficulty is in finding an objective reason to block - which the proposed restrictions are more clear about. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * uhm, isn't that what Jennavecia just said? That they ran the proposal by BC first to make sure he'd abide by it before they showed it to the community. I took that to mean that if he wouldn't abide by it then it wouldn't have been shown to the community (as per it seemed pointless to present it to the community if Betacommand was not willing to abide by it). Which means they would have altered the proposed sanctions if he didn't like them. If I'm wrong please clarify it because I can't read that statement any other way.--Crossmr (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond making sure Betacommand would abide by them, we also considered if they would achieve the goals that the present, unclear sanctions were intended to. The proposed sanctions are certainly more clear than the previous one, they include an explicit edit rate restriction, they require manual verification of edits... The proposed restrictions, in their clarity, are more restrictive and more enforceable than my reading of the old restrictions. That Betacommand has agreed to them is only an additional benefit. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. It still sounds like these were shown to BC before the community to make sure he was okay with them. The initial comment about it still makes it sound as though if he didn't agree with them, they would have been changed to suit him.  Luckily, it was a smooth discussion, there really shouldn't be much discussion over this with him, outside of "here are the restrictions you have to abide by to continue editing here". The committee wasn't put in place to negotiate with BC.--Crossmr (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems as if you're arguing that, because Betacommand agrees to it, the proposal is not good. That would be an absurd argument; the proposal is what it is, regardless whether Betacommand agrees to it. The fact that he did agree to it can only be a benefit, since the overall goal is to resolve the present dispute in a way that is generally acceptable to all sides. If you want binding decisions, you'll need to take rootology's suggestion to go to arbcom. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No I'm trying to get clarification on the process involved to make sure its in the community's best interest. since the overall goal is to resolve the present dispute in a way that is generally acceptable to all sides. That isn't the overall goal. The overall goal is to create sanctions for a problem editor that are acceptable to the community. BC can abide by those or not, but he should have no role in deciding his own sanctions. it completely defeats the purpose.--Crossmr (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, if your goal is simply to impose additional involuntary sanctions, you need to turn to arbcom. It's clear from the length and state of this page that they won't be found here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) I think I made this pretty clear, so I'm going to have to agree with Carl in that such an argument is absurd. There has been way more discussion on Betacommand that could every reasonably be considered necessary. To prevent additional pointless discussion, once we hammered out a proposal, we showed it to Betacommand to see if he would be willing to follow it. Had he said no, then the proposal would have changed. Probably to something like "Betacommand is restricted to solely manual edits for a period of x months." Fortunately, he agreed to our changes, so we then presented them to the community for approval and tweaking. It's by far the most efficient way to go about this, and to say that this proposal is no good because he is willing to abide by it is honestly ridiculous, and suggesting such is counter-productive. Jennavecia (Talk)  04:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That was never my argument. My argument was against letting him veto his restrictions. Your initial comment made it sound like if he didn't like it, you would have gone back and changed it to something he liked. Which seemed rather counter productive.--Crossmr (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put to you another way: He is pretty much banned at this point looking at all the discussion and who is supporting what (by my eyes). To let him edit again, he would need to abide by a set of restrictions. If he did not even accept the restrictions, there is no need for us to even discuss them. He wasn't able to veto them, he was shown them to see if he would be amenable to them. If he wasn't, there is no point in going through this exercise. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<-And for the record, I support the committee proposal with one amendment: adding defined penalties for infractions and a civility clause. The former to reduce drama on AN/ANI, the latter as well as to start getting him inline with our civility policy. Looking at all the energy expended over the last year on one person, a lot of other things could have been done instead of this. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree these are absolutely needed.--Crossmr (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New information above
There's an updated proposal from the ad hoc committee above. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions in place?
I note from WP:AN that the restrictions on BC are supposedly in place. Could someone confirm that, and can we have the final text of the restrictions here, where it will be easier to find if necessary? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 02:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup - the proposal that has been enacted can be found at Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is way to premature. If you want something to honestly have support from the community, then you need to allow discussion for more than just a few days. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure how to say this Ned, but you're wrong. Your perception of the consensus is ... just far from reality. I don't know how else to explain it. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 04:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta has already said they are fine, and there is no opposition now to overturn the consensus to go ahead with it, so they're de facto in place till a consensus shows they're not. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is absolutely the way to go. I think the community is really tired of the endless debates between the Beta hard- and soft-liners, which deflect from attempts to find the middle ground. Here we have a way to move forward, let's see how well it works. Hopefully, we won't anymore see YABT's (yet another beta thread). FTR, I support this arrangement. (However, Ryan, your link above doesn't seem to work(?)) Franamax (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't work because Ned Scott unilaterally deleted the restrictions. I've restored them. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If Beta says he's ok with the restrictions, then fine. My apologies for not noticing that before. Even so, when proposals are only a few days old then, generally speaking, you do not jump the gun and declare a community consensus based on that alone. Additional comments might even strengthen the consensus you see. People put a lot of weight on what "community consensus" means, so I feel it is important that we don't just throw the term around lightly. I hope with that you can understand my thinking a little better. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In spite of Ned's misinterpretations, even if Beta hadn't agreed, there is concensus that the unblock was wrong, and that the block should have been reinstated. These restrictions are in lieu of that, clearly justified, reblock. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the unblock was exactly the right thing to do. Consensus is not mob rule, and we give a lot of weight to calm and logical points of view. -- Ned Scott 02:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no opposition to the new proposal, including from Betacommand. There was no reason not to go ahead and make it official, for the benefit of Betacommand and the community. Jennavecia (Talk)  14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment above is unnecessary. Beta has agreed, so the question of whether this is imposed by the community or an agreed editing restriction is moot unless beta withdraws agreement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ned, I find your attitude here ominous. This thread has been active for a long time. Agreement on the need for clearer restrictions was very clear, agreement on letting a small group of people write it up was very clear, agreement on the actual wording was, despite suggestions of minor tweaks here and there, also very clear. You haven't participated in this discussion for ten days and suddenly you barge in here saying that there hasn't been enough discussions, despite ample evidence to the contrary. You seem to ignore that Beta was ok with the wording which means that you haven't even read the above discussion. You revert the addendum to the ArbCom log without even taking the time to contact Jennavecia or to read the above thread. This is exactly the kind of shit that has to stop. So get a grip man. Make sure you understand the situation before commenting on it. Make sure you ask questions before taking action. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I had not read the discussion in depth, I had read enough to see that there was only a few days between the wording proposals, as well as several comments about people unsure and/or changing their minds. My revert was was without bias to Betacommand, and based primarily on a strong feeling of mine about small groups of people throwing around the term "community consensus". Regardless if you or I feel it is the best plan in the world, if you want to use that term then you need to give it more time. I knew full well that we were clarifying the restrictions for BC's benefit, and it had nothing to do with wether I agreed with it or not.


 * Even having now read the full discussion now, and thinking more about it, I don't think I was wrong for reverting the arbcom addition for being premature. Not only that, but I don't think we should be logging community sanctions on an arbcom case page, which gives a false impression that those sanctions are on par with arbcom decisions. It's not a big deal, it's not the start of a shit storm, it was nothing more than a "hey, lets just give it a few more days so we can honestly say this is real community consensus" thing. In the long run that kind of thing helps us all out.


 * So no, I do not agree with you when you say that what I did is the kind of crap that has to stop. I do need to communicate my thinking a lot better, but the logic behind it (as I tried to explain above) is sound. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I'm usually pretty cool headed but I'm going to hammer you on this one. I'm sorry but in fact your logic is pretty faulty. I'll get to that in a minute but let me make it clear that your actions, however correct your logic may be, are definitely wrong. You had not touched this page in a week and not "read the discussion in depth". I wish you'd just admit that you basically hadn't read it: anyone taking a quick look would for one be fully aware that BC had accepted the new formulation of the restrictions. Now let me know if I have the wrong timeline and basic facts but as far as I understand:
 * You did not have the present page on your watchlist.
 * You did not have Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 on your watchlist either since Jennavecia logged the restrictions way earlier than your revert without reaction on your part.
 * You have BC's talk page watchlisted and so you see Ryan's note just as you log on on September 4.
 * You make no effort to contact either Ryan or Jennavecia but instead post a vague reply here and 2 minutes later revert Jennavecia on Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. Two important things here.
 * Number one: I say your note was vague because it does not attempt to argue that support is lacking. This is not too surprising because you'd have a hard time finding anyone resolutely opposed, from Ryan to Jennavecia, from rootology to Jaydvb, from Ed Fitzgerald to CBM and of course Beta himself. To put it differently, pretty much anyone involved in trying to fix this.
 * Number two, your revert of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 is almost edit warring. Moreover you justify your revert with the "it does not belong on an arb case page" which of course is nonsense. I don't mind that you don't know how this works but if you had asked around, say to an ArbCom member, he'll tell you.

Now about your logic. Community consensus is consensus among people who have some interest in the issue. We're not going to send the proposed restrictions to the foundation's mailing list for approval. Many people with various opinions of and relationships with BC discussed this at length and came up with a proposal that had everybody pretty happy. That's consensus. Notice was sent to WP:AN two days before your revert. People there also supported the result. Basically, your revert was of the form "no consensus can exist because I haven't vetted the proposal". You came in with little understanding of the situation, made no effort to understand it, no effort to contact any of the involved admins, no effort to check if logging community remedies on ArbCom cases is standard practice. This is always bad but it's really problematic when you do so in fairly tense contexts. In other words, that shit has got to stop. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, what the fuck? I have had all of those pages watchlisted for a long time. And of course I don't attempt to argue support is lacking. That has nothing to do with the point.


 * I've been a participant in several arbcom cases, at least three as a party of the case. Never have I seen community sanctions noted in such a way. I've seen them noted, but, as I said before, in this situation it made it seem the community restrictions were on pair with an arbcom restriction. The fact that people were using that edit as a sign of the restrictions being put in place highlights such a problem (in that the restrictions should already be validated by this discussion. Noting them on the arbcom page is just that, a note).


 * About my logic? I never said we needed to advertise the discussion more, or try to get more people involved. I said it would be wise to wait a few more days (for the love of god, some of us have lives and can't wait on the computer every minute of the day) if one wanted to honestly claim a consensus. If you knew anything about me, you'd probably know that I have raised concerns many times about speedy closing discussions and the claim of a community consensus. Are you people so freaking impatient that a few more days of keeping discussion open seems like a bad idea? And I'm not even demanding this, I'm only saying that I believe it is a very good idea.


 * And now you spout this bullshit that my intention was something like "no consensus can exist because I haven't vetted the proposal". What the hell? I already read the restriction two days ago when I first noticed the edit on my watchlist. I felt uneasy about it then, but hadn't done anything until yesterday. I might not have read this discussion page in depth at the time, but I had read the arbcom edit in full.


 * I already apologized, and simply tried to explain my thinking. I still believe I am right, that people should give more than four days to discuss something before throwing around the name of the community. I'm not going to fight you on it, and I'm not going to edit war over it, but I'm not going to let you attack me based on assumptions of bad faith. I am sorry that you interpreted my actions as hostile, and I'm sorry that you're (ironically) overreacting to a nonissue that was resolved yesterday. (by the way, it's that kind of shit that needs to stop, for these things to be avoided in the future). So please, with all do respect, get the fuck off my back . -- Ned Scott 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, woo! It's all good. No big deal. He reverted me, he got reverted. It's over. I didn't actually read all of the last two posts, but I think I get the idea... everyone let it go, maybe? Okay. As for Ned's comment about the blocks not needing to be logged on the page, I agree that it's kind of pointless. It's currently a non-chronological mess. I started to clean it up, but so many were overturned or adjusted, I finally just said "fuck it" and went on to something else. If the log is going to be posted there, it needs to be cleaned up and perhaps tabled so it's obvious which blocks were justified and which weren't according to consensus.


 * I think this thread has more expletives than any other I've seen other than talk pages... and, if I may, can the civility policy not jump on these guys, kthx. Jennavecia  (Talk)  05:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye, I need to walk away from this. My apologies for the mess, and the rudeness. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)