Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Arbitrator discussion

 * Non-arbitrators are asked not to comment in this section; comments are welcome in below.

This is a case with a wide range of potential aspects. In some past cases a divisive issue has been that the community has been initially unclear which aspects will be looked into by the Committee (and with what perspective), and which are considered less central. The following areas may be looked into as part of the case. Arbitrators are encouraged to comment on case coverage and their initial approach to the areas raised by the community.


 * 1. Betacommand - civility, general conduct issues, bot management issues
 * Yes. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. Betacommand/BCBot - OWNership/monopoly issues
 * These include for practical purposes,
 * Betacommand's strong say in how image policy will be interpreted and operated in practice
 * Impeding of other views and approaches (eg, acceptance/rejection of competing bot code, and acceptance/rejection of requests related to BCBot in favor of Betacommand's own views and solutions)
 * The manner in which BCBot is said to be hard to withdraw from service if its operation were unsatisfactory in any way, and
 * The manner in which criticism of the bot's function is evaluated by Betacommand rather than independently, making the BCBot issues cited by users frustratingly hard to improve in others view.
 * It is emphasized that some of these may derive from legitimate quality concerns or may not be a problem; no presumption should be drawn.
 * Ownership of process rather than content is not a common issue. If it is arising here then intervention may be helpful. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. Bot Approval Group
 * Custodianship of bot decision-making, bot standards and their enforcement, and alleged marginalizing of community in some areas of Bot policy.
 * Some of these are technical as much as conduct issues. But they are areas of communal concern and if a large part of the community has concerns and is unable to address them, then it falls to us to at least review at a minimum. The non-technical areas, such as enforcement of standards and any alleged insularity, would be valid issues to look at, but although proposed by some, actual evidence is slim so far. There will however be a degree of presumption in respect of technical issues, that these are best assessed by bot coders and that BAG is comprised of wiki-bot specialists who decide these things appropriately. Evidence by uninvolved/non-BAG bot coders would be welcome. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 4. Interpretation of non-free image policy
 * Disputes whether editor actions (manually or via bot) match communal standards is a cornerstone of the dispute. Implies considering whether or not these policies are broadly being well interpreted and operated by those concerned, or misinterpreted by others. A second side is whether image policy is being cited more ruthlessly than is anticipated by WMF policy or communal agreement, to support a more forceful approach to image purging than consensus or WMF policy has agreed necessary. Some guidance may help users arguing fiercely over the appropriate interpretation of WMF non-free image policy.
 * Yes. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 5. The proposed BAG remedy (NFCC bot)
 * Insofar as any remedies may need to be drafted with a view to the changing situation, if it goes live in future. The case is accepted now rather than (say) after we find out what happens to NFCCBot. So it addresses the issues as they now stand, rather than uncertain future developments. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 6. Communal issues
 * This broadly covers attacks on Betacommand and other users seeking to enforce fair use policies, the conflicts this has led to, and the deadlock of communication and understanding noted by ST47 and others at /Evidence.
 * It is hard to resolve a dispute if both sides are sure they are right, or if both sides are not taken into account, and Arbitration is intended to resolve disputes. But unclear whether this would lead to any findings, or more likely, comments by Arbitrators on the matter. Also others' provocative actions does not preclude the need to act well oneself, although in this case the provocation is intense at times. FT2 (Talk 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2 (Talk 10:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User comments
Is the above format new for this type of talkpage, perhaps an effort to keep things more orderly? Avruch  T 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbitration can always improve. My view - and its important that its a personal view - is that it helps in heated messy disputes to communicate more than just a decision, and to explain as appropriate how it is that certain key lines or stances are chosen or perceived. If there are many aspects to a case and some are followed through and ruled on, and others aren't, some users may feel upset their views were apparently not as well thought of. At the worst there may be widescale upset that the case approach isn't as some expected. Rather than just produce principles, findings, remedies, and enforcements, some more complex cases might benefit from an insight into "how arbitrators are approaching the case" and why they take the initial approach they do (so far as privacy allows). It might be useful in some cases to have a foreword to the case, or some discussion about it, or a neutral summary afterwards of how the Committee saw it, or "notes" added to the "arbitrator" section at the end of the page.


 * Obviously the cases that are simple and straightforward are pretty much self-documenting anyway so this may only apply to some cases, and it may not help at all. It's a good idea though, I think.


 * Two way communication counts, and transparency where possible; and we're seeing the messier cases now with simpler cases easily resolved, where this may be a good evolutionary step. So there's semi-agreement to trial it this time, and see what happens.


 * FT2 (Talk 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (While the above isn't directly intended to "keep the page more orderly", the general view is that anything that helps or produces more light will be a Good Thing, as in any discussion. But what ways that might be done are likely to evolve over the next few months than anything. Other changes over time to make case discussion pages more useful might well also come up in the next few months.) FT2 (Talk 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that grouping similar proposals together, instead of grouping by the person proposing, would be a better way of doing things. It is possible to have a links section ordering the contents by topic, rather than proposer, but that would need people to maintain it. Ideally, each section could be tagged by proposer and topic, and a button could be clicked to sort the proposals by proposer or by topic. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One preliminary point - not many people (even the other arbitrators) will have got round to looking at this talk page yet. I only found it because I watchlisted all the case pages. Maybe a note at the workshop talk page and on the arbitrators' mailing list might help ensure everyone is aware of this talk page discussion of scope.

My thoughts are: That should be enough for now. I'd like to note here that I'll be away over Easter, and not submitting evidence until early next week (Tuesday or Wednesday). Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Would add "communication issues" as something separate from the other ones mentioned, and as something that needs to be singled out from general conduct. There are times when you have to ask several times to get an answer from Betacommand - partly because of the sprawling nature of the discussions, but partly, I feel, also because Betacommand may not have the time or inclination to answer all the questions he is asked. I also get the impression that Betacommand, like many bot operators, is more easily contactable via other means of communication, which is fair enough, but the primacy of on-wiki communication can never be stressed enough.
 * 2) "Betacommand's strong say in how image policy will be interpreted and operated in practice" - in fact there are other bot operators and bots working in the area of images and image policy (not all of these are concerned with non-free images - many are to do with images in general). An incomplete list (I am working on compiling a more complete list) is: User:BetacommandBot, User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User:STBotI, User:ImageResizeBot, User:ImageRemovalBot, User:MiszaBot, User:ImageTaggingBot, User:OrphanBot, User:FairuseBot, User:CommonsDelinker, and so on.
 * 3) For bot policy and the bot approvals group, I would recommend reading through the archives of WT:BAG and WT:BOT. Arbitrators trying to comment on how the community is handling this policy area will end up merely repeating previous arguments and misunderstandings, unless they read those archives.
 * 4) For non-free content policy, I would recommend reading through the archives of WT:NFC. Arbitrators trying to comment on how the community is handling this policy area will end up merely repeating previous arguments and misunderstandings, unless they read that archive.
 * 5) As well as the proposed BAG remedy, it would be nice if other proposed remedies or plans were not forgotten. I still have hopes for WP:NFCC-C, and would note that the operator of the proposed bot User:ImageResizeBot did post to the talk page of that proposal, so I am still hopeful that an overarching system of bots (working with humans) can be co-ordinated to enforce Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. This will hopefully make non-free image work much more coherent and planned than it has been in the past. For comments on the social and cultural failings of the past processes of non-free image work, see here.
 * 6) "attacks on Betacommand and other users seeking to enforce fair use policies" - I would also note here the attacks made by some people on those legitimately criticising Betacommand and his bot. In addition, one communal issue is the periodic attempts by those who wish en-Wikipedia had no non-free images (known as the "German solution", because the German Wikipedia does not allow fair use), to try and enforce this extreme viewpoint. There are definitely two extreme, ideological, viewpoints here, and neither is very helpful to those trying to work something out in practice. It leads to a very unstable position, where a battle ensues between those who want to "Free Wikipedia!" (eg. User:ST47) and those who want to illustrate their articles by hook or by crook. Those trying to achieve stability somewhere near (but not at) the "totally free" pole, get caught in the cross-fire - and that is bad.

Bellwether B C  Comments
There are four things I see as absolutely necessary from this proposed decision: Hopefully, we will see a decision in this case that deals with these four major concerns. I'm sure other people have other "essentials" that they would like to see addressed, but these are my four basic concerns. Bellwether B  C  14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It must deal with Betacommand's chronic incivility.
 * 2) It must deal with the Fair Use issue, and the attempts by some to remove seemingly all Fair Use images from the project (the so-called "German Solution" mentioned by Carcharoth above).
 * 3) It must deal with the misuse of tools by ST47 at the BRFA. This type of abuse has a distinct chilling effect on those of us who might have otherwise become regular participants in the bots discussion.
 * 4) It must deal with the closed nature of BAG, perhaps opening it up for more community scrutiny by moving the BRFAs to a subsection of the RFA page, as the RFBs are currently. The "apathy" of the community toward bot approval is, in my opinion, caused as much by the fact that the BRFA process has little, if any, community "light" being shone upon it.

Useless remedies
Betacommand already had an ArbCom case last year and already got a lot of warnings about his conduct. Another warning from ArbCom is useless. He will still be incivil and abuse bots and other things. Then we will have another ArbCom case about BetacommandBot a few months later. There must be a "actionable remedy". Something like "Betacommand is placed on civility parole" or "BetacommandBot must shut down".

--Kaypoh (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I must concur with this. I am dismayed that the Committee is considering letting Betacommand off without even so much as a slap on the wrist and barely a mention of his behaviour in the remedies at all. Such a decision is almost tantamount to an endorsement-- if something isn't done, we'll be seeing Requests for Arbitration/Betacommand 3 soon enough. Jtrainor (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont deny that I have civility issues, and there are several methods that I would like to see implemented. One of the issues is that I do tend to snap after taking a large amount of abuse. What I would like to see, But ArbCom cant do it, admins need to stop being timid and take a hard stance against personal attacks and incivility. If we had a hard line, I would very rarely loose my cool. But as it stands a lot of admins dont have the backbone to do anything that might even remotely be considered controversial. All wikipedians need to take a zero tolerance policy. If that was implemented it would solve a lot of issues, not only the ones brought up in this case. βcommand 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did anyone ever do the suggested walk through the history of your talk page to see if it is possible to say something more useful about the amounts and levels of incivility you experienced? That might be useful. The best person to do that, though, would be you, because that would show us what you consider to be "abuse" and "large amount". There was abuse, but it is the levels and amounts that are not clear, as far as I can tell. As for taking a hardline stance, would that apply to your instances of incivility as well, or is it one rule for some and another rule for others? It is also worth remembering that many instances of what you call "abuse" would not be met by blocks, but would, in the first instance, be met with a warning (just like you sometimes only received a warning). Only if the abuse was severe or continued, would a block be placed. Also the volume of response on your talk page was a result of your decision to do these tagging runs, and the increased stress you felt due to that volume should not be taken out on any single individual who turns up at your talk page and is angry. They don't know that you have just read 10 similar messages over the last few days. This was a problem of social management and not spreading the load. Breaking out the riot police to keep angry and incivil people away from your talk page wouldn't have been the answer. Doing the runs with different accounts and different talk pages managed by different people might have been one answer, and would be something to consider if you find yourself with lots of images to tag again in future. Please ask people to help you plan things better the next time you do tagging runs that will affect thousands of images and take months to complete. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am very civil with the random user who pops up with a question. I agree with a hard line for everyone. see User talk:BetacommandBot for one example. that "volume" that you talk about is not the cause. If a user calmly and civilly asks me a question I am glad to help them. The users that I have problems with are those who approach the situation in an attacking manner and or have a goal to disrupt. 98% of the users who come to my talk page are taken care of in a very respectful manner. βcommand 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the absence of any analysis, I will take the 98% figure on faith. I'm happy with the proposed decision. Are you happy with it? I've (briefly) said below what I intend to do to help after the case closes. Would you be able to write something similar (and equally brief) to help bring closure to this and to help everyone (including yourself) to move forward and improve the encyclopedia by working productively with others? Carcharoth (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been watching Betacommand's talkpage for a while. I don't know about percent of users, but my impression is that less than 25% of comments get a civil response.  About 50% get a brusque referral to the history of Betacommand's talkpage or the non-free content criteria, and about 25% get a rude response or get removed as abusive. --Carnildo (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would completely concur with Carnildo here. BC has a very ... interesting take on the underlying "cause" of his incivility. And his "98%" seems grossly overstated. Bellwether B  C  13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd start off by questioning whether Image:Stop hand.svg at 200px in a message box wondering, inter alia, "If you're here to whine and complain that..." is consistent with an aim -- much less a reality -- of visitors being "taken care of in a very respectful manner", even before Beta "deals with them" in a more, as it were, personalised manner. Alai (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That stop sign has been brought to his attention many, many times. He refuses to remove it. Bellwether B  C  01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth
No time to contribute more than this, but a few points, some minor, some longer: I haven't looked at the workshop page to see what proposals were not included, but as one of the parties to the case, I'm happy with this proposed decision, and I'd like to thank Newyorkbrad (and the other arbitrators) for their continuing work on this case. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposed principle 5 - The distinction between freely licensed content and the public domain is sometimes tricky. It is sometimes helpful to draw a distinction between works released into the public domain, those with free licenses, and those where the copyright has expired. Doesn't really affect the proposed decision, but I thought it was a point worth making.
 * Proposed principle 6 - "This policy serves as the project-specific implementation of the Wikimedia Foundation resolution on licensing policy." - possibly use the specific terminology of "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (EDP). More prosaically, the link provided is wrong - the link provided is to the meta page and a currently open translation request. It is best to use the link to the WMF wiki: here.
 * Proposed principle 7 - "incurable" is a strange way to put this. A better wording would be something like "cannot be fixed", or something less indicative of a "cure" (which implies something about what was wrong).
 * Proposed principle 8 - "avoiding potential legal exposure" - it is best to avoid encouraging editors to act as lawyers (I know, I do this as well, but the point is still valid). Judging copyright issues can be tricky, and the default position of "if in doubt, delete" is not always best, particularly as legal exposure is sometimes minimal to the point of non-existence. One of the unhelpful situations, when debating these issues, when someone weighs in with a "copyright paranoia" viewpoint. Legal exposure issues should be handled with care and not overdone either way.
 * Proposed principles 10 and 11.1 - these seem to miss out the point that while the bot can be technically approved by BAG, and the bot operator needs to respond to community concerns about how the bot is operated, what is far more important is that the bot operator respond to any editor or group of editors that raises concerns about the content and nature of the edits. ie. Not "how are you doing these edits?", but "why are you doing these edits". In other words, bot edits, if questioned on the level of "would I revert if a human did these edits" need a full response from the bot operator to justify the edits, not a dismissive "this has been approved by BAG" response. In case this is not clear, I'm talking about Betacommand's response to the redlinked category incident (which turned out to be an unapproved task), the full extent of which is still not clear (I haven't have time yet to analyse the edit history to see how many redlinked cateogories BetacommandBot removed over the past two years and how many of those should have been corrected instead of removed).
 * Proposed FoF 4 - "even though they had nothing to do with that user" - "they" is unclear - change to "the images"?
 * Proposed remedy 4 - my personal contribution to community input will be to continue to try and develop WP:NFCC-C, to try and restart a debate on what the WMF deadline means and to try and get community consensus on what actions need to be taken after the deadline (ie. either make changes after a widely advertised debate, or continue as we have done this past year), to continue contributing at WT:NFC (and possibly other fora such as WP:MCQ and WP:ICHD, where others do sterling work), to continue debating how WP:NFCC should be interpreted, both in general and in specific cases, to continue trying to obtain and analyse statistics about non-free image use and management (or asking others to do this). Point (D) should already be addressed by WP:FUR, but the problem is when people on either side disagree and edit war rather than go to a venue like that.
 * Proposed remedy 5 - 60 days should be enough time to sort something out, or at least try and move things forward a bit. Let's hope a future review is not needed.
 * Thanks. I agree with most of your comments and have done some copyediting of the proposed decision to implement a few of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your second copyedit introduced a new error. :-) I think you've put "though" instead of "through". And the WMF resolution link (from UninvitedCompany) is still to meta, not wmf. Not hugely important, but I think the link should point to wmf, not meta (though I'm not entirely sure why there are two copies of the resolution, one each on both meta and wmf). Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the link as suggested. Paul August &#9742; 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where will the discussion happen?
Okay, so we're supposed to have a community discussion about bots and image policy. The appropriate pages for such discussion seem to be a morass of rarely-visited Wikipedia talk pages and subpages, with the administrator's noticeboard being the de facto place to have a visible (if unproductive) discussion. Where will the discussion urged by the proposed decision be held?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I thought the committee's calling for some community focus on these issues is precisely the dispersion of relevant discussion among various forums that you note. I suggest that a central page for addressing these issues be created and appropriately publicized. Please note that remedy 4 is not intended as "the arbitrators don't know what to do so we're flinging the problem back at everyone else." The intent is genuinely that we redirect new focus and energy on updating systems that potentially could benefit from additional collective experience since they were designed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
Can we get a finding of fact and some principles about the use of page protection on BAG pages? No one is looking for remedies, but editors oftentimes mistake the silence of Arbcom for an endorsement. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the drafter of the proposed decision, I don't think that this incident rose to the level of requiring an Arbitration Committee finding. That aspect of the matter would never have reached ArbCom level if it hadn't been swept up in the other issues surrounding Betacommand and BetacommandBot, and my view is that under those circumstances editors whose delicts are comparatively slight should not be thrown into the official arbitration findings just because they happen, so to speak, to be in the room. Of course, any other arbitrator is free to add additional proposals to the proposed decision for voting.
 * In response to your last comment, I will address it as follows: Any silence of Arbcom on this or any other matter is not an endorsement. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ST47 wasn't simply "in the room." He abused his tools to enforce his position in a dispute. It is quite troubling that you would refer to this abuse as not rising "to the level of requiring an Arbitration Committee finding." If blatant abuse of tools doesn't rise to that level, what does? Furthermore, ST47 has referred to me as "disruptive" for my participation at that BAG, both before and after he abused his tools. It needs to be addressed, even if just with a "ST47 is cautioned" type remedy. Failing to do so is a tacit endorsement of his abuse of tools, no matter what you claim above. Bellwether B  C  01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is this: If Betacommand and his bot weren't at the center of a series of disputes that resulted in arbitration, how likely is it that we would have taken the case simply to review ST47's conduct? Another question also relevant is whether ST47 has ever been alleged to have misused tools in a similar way in the past, or whether this is a highly isolated incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And my point is this: his misuse of tools is directly related to this case. I'm not asking for him to be desysopped. I'm simply asking that there be an official finding be made that this was, in fact, a misuse of tools. Bellwether B  C  02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My position remains as stated above, but I'd like to get some additional input here, from arbitrators or otherwise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please defend your position as stated above. As yet, you've failed to do so. The reasoning you give doesn't stand up. Bellwether B  C  02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I don't agree with you, and your conclusory announcement that I have "failed" to articulate my views satisfactorily and that my reasoning "doesn't stand up" does little to advance the intellectual tenor of the discussion. I thought I outlined specific reasons for my approach to the decision, and when I realized we remained in disagreement, I suggested we obtain input from other members of the committeem, which after all is one of the reasons we have a 15-member committee rather than a single individual making these decisions. But since you want me to recapitulate my reasoning with apparently greater detail, I will proceed to do so.
 * It is unfortunately the case that with 1500 administrators, of whom at least several hundred are active on any given day, inappropriate uses of the tools are going to occur from time to time. Some will be mild or borderline inappropriate misuses, and some will be vary serious; some will be isolated misuses by administrators with strong records, and others will be parts of serious patterns of administrator misconduct.
 * The Arbitration Committee's usual policy, in order to avoid making mountains out of molehills and also in order usually to keep the caseload to a reasonable level (though that has not been an issue in recent weeks), is to issue findings against administrators who engage in serious misconduct, or a pattern of misconduct. It is considered overkill, at least by some of us, to make a formal Arbitration Committee finding of misconduct, which I consider a serious matter, against an administrator or other editor unless there is an incident or pattern of sufficiently serious misconduct to warrant such a finding.
 * ST47's conduct in the matter you describe has been widely criticized, and his attempt to curtail a controversial discussion was a misjudgment that backfired by increasing rather than curtailing the ongoing disharmony. ST47 compounded this error by choosing after it occurred to defend his action and its results rather than promise that he would not repeat it. Nonetheless, neither you (in response to my direct question above) nor any other editor (on the evidence page) has suggested, much less established, that this was anything other than an isolated incident in ST47's history of service to the community. These are all judgment calls, and I acknowledge that it is quite possible for other editors or administrators to disagree with my position on this or any other proposal or non-proposal (compare the proposals made by arbitrator Kirill Lokshin on the workshop). This is not the only time when I have found that an administrator made a poor judgment or misused tools, even in the specific area of page protection, but that the incident was an isolated one and did not call for an ArbCom finding against that administrator. See for example my vote against the proposed finding of fact against David Gerard in the IRC case.
 * I have attempted, in this case and others where I have been the principal drafter of the decision, to craft a forward-looking decision that focuses on addressing the sources and causes of disruption and entering remedies that will eliminate them and restore good working relations and harmony to the affected sectors of the community. In this instance, as a matter of the discretion that I and the other arbitrators were selected to exercise, I find that ST47's administrator conduct in this matter, while flawed, did not rise to the level that would require an arbitration finding and that no useful purpose for the community going forward would be served by the entry of such a finding. If a finding against ST47 is indeed necessary, I am sure that it will be proposed by one of the 12 other participating arbitrators.
 * I hope that this addresses your questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It makes no sense, when an administrator not only refuses to acknowledge that his misuse of tools was a mistake, but even attacks those who he used his tools against as "disruptive." The misuse is directly related to this case, and ST47 hasn't even said he'll not use his tools in such a manner in the future. A simple reminder or something like that placed in the record would be completely appropriate, and it's incredibly disappointing to me that you're opposing such a simple addition to the proposed decision. I'll be unwatching these case pages now, as I'm not in need of increased stress right now . As a party to the case, I'll still be notified whenever you all come up with a decision, right? Bellwether B  C  03:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your candor, Brad, and thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I can accept your position that any formal acknowledgment of an administrator misstep by the committee may cast the otherwise fine contributions of a volunteer into a negative light.  I don't think that ST47 is a poor administrator.  I understand that people make mistakes, and I think that everyone around here is very quick to forgive any error that is properly acknowledged.  But in this instance, in spite of wide-ranging criticism, the page remains protected to this day, and ST47 remains adamant that there was nothing wrong with his administrative action.  Now what?  The only real responsibility of our administrators above those of any other editor is to use their administrative tools in accordance with the relevant policies.  Every time an administrator protects a page solely because he doesn't wish for people to edit it and each time a good-faith contributor is blocked without consensus-seeking discussion prior to the block, our page protection and blocking policies are eroded as these inappropriate actions slowly become viewed as "community norms".  Who will enforce these policies, when administrators choose to ignore them?  I call tell you who doesn't and won't: ANI and RFC.  The responsibility for addressing administrator misconduct rests with Arbcom.
 * I hope that the Arbitration Committee will see fit to take a hard line, both today and from now on, against administrators who willfully misuse their tools and fail to acknowledge the error of their ways by the time a Proposed Decision rolls around. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 04:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand Brad not wanting to cover everything raised in an arbitration case, but equally leaving loose ends makes it harder to achieve closure, and I fully agree with Nick about "erosion" of community norms and policies. It would help if others worked to resolve these loose ends (as I have done below), but this is difficult without guidance from ArbCom on what they consider to be within scope. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One simple way to force the issue would be to unprotect the page. If ST47's actions are truly not needed and don't have approval, then surely no-one should object to unprotecting the page? Brad, would you, as an administrator, consider asking ST47 if he will unprotect that page? If admins disagree over whether the page should be protected, then ArbCom would have to decide. The grey area is what happens if ST47 politely refuses to unprotect the page. It is exactly the same as whether admins disagree over unblocks. One thing is clear - there is no need for the page to be permanently protected and it should be unprotected at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would probably be inappropriate for Brad to get involved at that level. I've asked ST47 here to consider unprotecting the page as a gesture of good faith. The wider issue of whether the protection was needed in the first place will be harder to resolve, but I hope both "sides" can make some positive gestures. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick update. ST47 has since unprotected the page. I've thanked him for doing that. Please, if anyone wants to discuss that bot request, please do so at an alternative venue, and leave that archived request in peace I will now ask Bellwether and others if they are prepared to agree to disagree, and move on from this particular incident. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It has long been the position of the Arbitration Committee that administrators (and experienced editors as well) should not be discouraged from wading into situation and trying to resolve them. If administrators (and editors) become concerned that their work will be subject to criticism that is disproportionate to the level of actual harm done to the Project, then they will be less likely to volunteer to help in the next situation. For that reason, as Newyorkbrad indicates above, we usually do not mention administrators (or editors) by name unless there is a really good reason to do it; as in, without a caution or warning to them in particular, disruption or harm to the Project is likely to occur. I hope this explanation help. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you would do well to note that ST47 has not only failed to acknowledge that he was wrong--even attacking those who dared challenge his misuse of tools as being "disruptive"--but has equally failed to say that he'll not misuse them in that way again. A warning that he should not use them in disputes seems not only proper, but necessary. But this simple step seems not only unlikely but actually to have open hostility from resident arbitrators. This will have a distinct chilling effect on those of us participating in good faith in this arbcom who assumed all parties would be treated equally. Bellwether B  C  13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just keep a note of this incident, and if something similar happens again, you will be able to say to FloNight (and the other arbitrators): "it has happened again" (or point this out at an RfC). Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And hopefully this means that people will not be so quick to dismiss any mentions of Betacommand by name as a "slap on the wrist". Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thread continued below

Recent incident
Betacommand (using his human account, not his bot account) recently carried out a mass-tagging run of images where SVG equivalents existed (see AN/B). Possibly this shouldn't impact the arbitration case, as this is a rather obscure area of image policy, but it should be noted here for the record, I think. It seems many editors weren't aware of the complexities involved in the debate over SVG images (it also seems people don't agree what WP:CSD means), but the general point remains that a mass tagging run (even if done manually) seems to have caused a problem, and that clean-up efforts are stalled or slow. I was waiting to see what would get done, but Betacommand's only contribution so far has been this, and no reply to the reply to that. Ideally, all the images (about 550 according to Betacommand's contributions log) would be undeleted to allow a proper discussion. I'm also concerned as to what discussion took place before this all happened. If you tag 550 images for deletion, even if you think they are duplicates, surely you would discuss it somewhere first? Carcharoth (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine where it might have been discussed...
 * As for your suggestion to "make a note" of the arbs' replies here, I don't know how that will help. It's becoming more and more clear to me that there is a bit of a class system here. ST47 is of a different class, it's as simple as that. He's allowed to blatantly misuse his tools without apology or promise to desist in doing so, since it was only once. He's allowed to call those who questioned his misuse of tools "disruptive" in his "evidence." This is a clear case where a simple reminder for the record would have been sufficient (and probably caused the necessary actions on ST47's part), but the arbcom is refusing to be moved to even that simple slap-on-the-wrist-type solution. Bellwether B  C  13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, to Carcharoth) I've just looked over the "AN/B" thread and have to admit that the discussion of SVG's and "vector versions" is over my head at the moment. Can someone give me a link or a summary of what exactly is at issue in this aspect of the matter? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked people over there to provide a summary here. Hopefully someone will oblige. I'm not sure I fully understand it either, so would prefer to defer to someone who knows what they are talking about. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad, according to the thread, Betacommand tagged free images for which we have two versions to delete the version that is not in the SVG format for speedy deletion as being identical images. This is because generally SVG images scale better than PNG/JPG/GIF.  These were then mass-deleted by East718, as is the practice since we don't have enough admins to hand-delete the images.  The issue is that CSD#1 requires the images be of an identical file format, which these were not.  Further, deleting duplicate free images may create problems as sometimes all license and rights information is not transfered over when Graphics Lab converts a non-SVG image to an SVG image.  Lastly, deleting an image does not remove it from the database, and generally, Commons does not delete such duplicate images.  Add: And the duplicate identifying template Vector version available states that such duplicates should only be deleted per WP:IFD.  Is that a good explanation?  MBisanz  talk 01:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Also, for further clarity, raster images can be thought of as mosaics filled with colored tiles; while vector images contain the shape information of each object in the image, allowing them to be scaled to any dimension required. However, when images are converted from a raster image to vector image, some approximations must be made to make the vector shapes "smooth". In some cases, these approximations suck (for lack of a better term), so the original raster image is preferred. Technically speaking as well, the vector format requires a decoder, which in some cases may mishandle vector image information. Also, the licensing issues brought above are valid, as well as the fact that the community has reached no consensus about what to do with these images in previous discussions, so they are not covered under the speedy deletion policy. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * let me make a quick and dirty summary of the events. There are a lot of images that have two versions. a png/jpg ect and a SVG version. SVG is a better format for several reasons, the servers do more with SVG's than other forms, and if a given browser does not support svg the servers automatically convert it to png which all browsers support. When an image is converted/renamed/reuploaded the full history should be either on the talkpage or the image page itself to preserve the GDFL. The issue here apparently is that some users dont maintain the GDFL when re-uploading but instead just use a wikilink which does not satisfy the GDFL as the target of the wiki link is not a permanent link to the history of the image. I have done this several weeks ago without any issue and I have actually had some request to do some more. so I converted the usage of the old image to the new and tagged the duplicate image for deletion. I see no reason to keep duplicate copies of the same image, and policy agrees with that. the main objects are that GDFL is not always maintained on the new image. βcommand 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if the GFDL violations were deletable concerns (debatable), the speedy deletion policy does not support such deletions, and it never has. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also: Breaking of old article versions, the fact the SVG may be inferior, and the fact deletion is not actually deletion (amongst other things). The discussion of Commons has all this in greater detail. The short version is images in different file formats are never duplicates. And this thread does look like someone disputing one of these deletions...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this post is starting to see this being dealt with. The larger question, one that is common to all bot operators and those running scripts to do mass taggings and deletions, are these: ''How much discussion took place beforehand? Is the response adequate when others object? Should others have to do the clean up, or should those who did the tagging and deletions help clean up?'' What I'd like to ask is whether the arbitrators consider such questions within their remit - I think straight answers to these three questions would strike to the heart of some of the problems that led to this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that, as at commons, it not be considered acceptable, ever, to delete apparently identical images which differ in format but have no other delete reasons offered. Tag the inferior formatted image with a cross pointer to the better one, find all the uses and replace them, sure. But not delete. The images are not duplicates. They differ in format and therefore are different. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This definitely needs to be clarified--and codified--for the more deletionist editors and admins amongst us. Bellwether B  C  22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The template, that categorizes the images in a manner that permits one to identify them as similar says

"Note: This file will not be deleted for this reason, unless it is explicitly nominated for deletion. Deleting this image might break the 'attribution path' for the new SVG image, which breaks licences such as the GFDL."
 * how much more explicit can it be?  MBisanz  talk 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Codification needs doing though. Hell its not actually written on Commons (but its accepted as policy there). I'll probably have a go at writing a real page over there sometime, then WP can just mirror it if its agreed to here.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of "Page protection" thread?

 * (to Bellwether BC) ST47's attention has been drawn to the preceding thread and I will be awaiting his comments there. Please do not confuse one or more arbitrators' disagreement, at least at this stage, with your position on a given proposed finding as "hostility" or creating a "class system" or anything of that nature. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you not see how those of us on the receiving end of ST47's misuse of tools might view the Arbcom's current silence on the matter as tacit approval of ST47's actions, as well as a relegation of us to a lower class of Wikipedian? Bellwether B  C  13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that when users are in conflict with each other, often their view of the situation is different than that of people that are less directly involved. Also as time passes, the seemingly glaring misconduct will fade into the past as the involved Community members engage themselves in other tasks or areas of interest. That is the reason that we suggest that users get third opinions, do content or user conduct RFC, or go into mediation prior to an arbitration case; and the reason that the Arbitration Committee usually delays making a ruling about an individual unless these steps are taken. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds an awful lot like Napolean's solution to the dilemma created when the leaders started breaking the Seven Commandments. "You don't really remember..." is a dangerous path to go down. ST47 did what he did. It was a clear violation of how tools are supposed to be used. Either it will be dealt with or it won't. Bellwether B  C  14:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the arbitration committee are in all likelihood not going to directly address this, and since the protecting admin has now (following my request) unprotected the page, could someone directly ask ST47 whether he will use his tools the same way in future? Once a calm discussion of that has taken place, followed by a BAG discussion regarding any future protection of bot requests and when it is acceptable, if such protection is ever needed. After that, I think this particular incident can be marked resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If ST47 will at least acknowledge that using his tools to enforce his position in a dispute was wrong, and that he'll not continue such behavior in the futre, that will have to be enough, as I don't think there's any willingness to deal with the issue here. Bellwether B  C  21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's best that the ArbCom directly address this. Having said that, I will go and ask, perhaps his response will be reassuring in some way. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, this edit summary, to me, indicates he doesn't understand that the protection was inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it back. ST47 needs a remedy directly addressing him. He clearly has no concept that what he did was completely, totally, utterly wrong. Bellwether B  C  01:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting here for the record, the response of the other editor I contacted. See here. It is discouraging that people feel that the response has been so poor that effectively give up and wash their hands of it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder how else arbcom expects us to feel (other than discouraged) when they refuse to deal with an administrator's clear misuse of his tools in a dispute he was involved in? Bellwether B  C  01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem people had with the page protection was that ST47 was: (a) one of the operators named in the bot request; and (b) he had taken part in the discussion. I'm not sure if it was ever made clear on the evidence pages, but the bot request was closed after two minutes (this was pre-planned on IRC by all accounts), reopened on my request (on-wiki request, obviously, as I don't use IRC), and then shut down again later, presumably because ST47 (among others) felt that the discussion was getting out of control or was going off-topic or whatever. I recall a clear admission that the shut-down decision was made on IRC as well, but need to find a diff for that. I could present evidence about this, but would prefer to handle this differently if at all possible. What I will do is leave a new message on ST47's talk page, asking for clear responses to the following: I think the best way to resolve this is for ST47 to give clear answers to those two questions. If an uninvolved admin had carried out the page protection, there would have been much less of a problem - in all likelihood, discussion would have amicably continued elsewhere, instead of being diverted into discussion of the page protection and whether it was needed or appropriate. Anyway, I will post those two questions on ST47's talk page, and invite him to respond here or there. Then that should, hopefully, be an end to it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you are named as an operator?
 * Will you avoid using your tools concerning bot requests where you have participated in the discussion?
 * I've left a comment/response on his talk page as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The upshot so far (why do I feel like I'm doing a mediation in the middle of an arbitration case?) is that ST47 has agreed that he will avoid using tools in future in such cases, but is insisting that where no-one else is available, he should be allowed to do admin stuff regardless. See here: "...if someone is available, sure. If something needs doing and it'd be easier to do it myself, I don't see a need to go hunting down administrators." I agree for uncontroversial stuff, but I remain unconvinced that ST47 realises that there are some cases where it is better to wait for an uninvolved administrator to turn up, rather than get impatient and carrying out a protection/deletion/block regardless. It is a case of judging whether the resulting discussion will be sidetracked by who used the admin tools, rather than focusing on the conduct that caused the incident in the first place. I also note that ST47 removed without reply a comment Bellwether left on his talk page - I saw nothing wrong with the comment, and I fail to see how ST47 can't see that such an action can only inflame things further. Again, questions of judgement are being raised. In an attempt to head off any dispute over that, I've added a link in the talk page thread (for the record), asked ST47 to restore the comment, and asked Bellwether to be calm in any responses. Carcharoth (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've both restored the comment (it was mine, and was not "unhelpful", so I feel fully justified in having done so) and left a--hopefully--not too angry response. If the AC can't see that ST47 needs a directive from then not to use his tools in such a manner after all of this, I don't know what will convince them. Bellwether B  C  14:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I no longer have a nice convenient thread on my talk page *ahem* I'll post here. Here be my state on the matter:
 * I agree not to use the tools at all in regards to BRFA, unless it's an unapproved bot operating needing blocked, or they (god forbid) give us the ability to flag bots.
 * I agree not to use the tools, specifically +protect and +block but +delete, -block, -delete, -protect as well, in any case where I am directly involved, barring vandalism, undoing my own actions or the actions of my bots, performing tests.
 * I wholeheartedly agree to cover my eyes, look away, and otherwise shirk any responsibility of reading any BRFA for betacommandbot due to the horrors that await me. (That's a recusal. Excuse me for a moment, there's a cat outside my window...)

Is that all? I think so. If there's any other work I can get out of doing (or any potential COI I've missed above) please share. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ST47's concession is helpful here, and I hope that all involved editors will realize that. I'd like to clarify that my problem was that the page was protected at all, that is, it was inappropriate for any adminstrator whatsoever to protect that page, as its protection violated the protection policy.  I don't care much for the whole "find an uninvolved admin to do your dirty work" rhetoric, since it's the dirty work I'm bothered by, not who does it.  Thus, I can understand ST47's irratation at the idea of having to scare up another adminstrator to do something that he is perfectly capable of doing himself, but when so involved, it's still socially best.
 * Still, I think that everyone has learned something: wikihugs all around and all that. Remember that ST47 could have just ignored all of Carcharoth's attempts to mediate the dispute, and that Arbcom has already made clear that there would be no consequences of doing so.  ST47's willingness to even continue the discussion at all is encouraging.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick, I hope I'm not belabouring the obvious if I point out that the "uninvolved admin" suggestion isn't intended just to move the "dirty work" around, but to make an as-independent-as-possible determination as to whether said protection is appropriate. Ideally, if they felt it was not, they might point-blank refuse to do so, which the first admin ought to take serious note of, or find some other course of action that was more acceptable to all parties.  Mere plausible deniability isn't the desired outcome.  Alai (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ST47 Reminded

 * Moved to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop. Daniel (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Left at the workshop page, but copied actual text back here, since this page is far more active than the workshop.
 * In looking at the history of the workshop page, it's been dead for days. Perhaps this remedy should remain here, since it needs attention from the arbs who haven't yet summarily rejected it, and who may or may not pay much attention to the workshop page. Bellwether B  C  14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A cross-reference here to the new workshop proposal is completely in order, as Bellwether is right that otherwise people will miss it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I left the link here when I moved the proposal, hence my signature above alongside the italics note. Daniel (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I wish someone would simply place this on the decision page, as it's certainly in the best interests of the project, but I don't have the courage to challenge the bosses. Bellwether B  C  14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be proposed on the workshop, where all proposals and suggestions for the arbitrators for use in the final decision are made. I will do so shortly unless you provide me with a very good reason not to. You are certainly strongly advised that adding this to the proposed decision page will be reverted; I am glad your foresight realised as much. Daniel (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already said I don't have that kind of courage. IAR would seem to be created for such things, but perhaps not. I wouldn't test the limits of it in such a fashion anyway. I'm also not incredibly familiar with the whole Arbcom procedural stuff, so proposing this at the workshop is fine, if you think that's appropriate. I put it here because this seemed to be where at least two of the arbs were most active. Bellwether B  C  14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to the workshop page. Daniel (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This seems reasonable and appropriate given the current unresolved nature of the incident (with an appropriate finding of fact of course). I can't imagine how anyone would imagine protecting a discussion page would somehow benefit the project in any way. Discussion should never be discouraged (its a lack of discussion that often leads to revert wars, and other unproductive activity). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that two of our more active arbitrators (Flo and Brad) have seemed to simply write this off as even a possibility when it was brought up at the proposed decision page. Then our clerk, Daniel, moved this from the more active PD talk to here, which has been long-dead, leaving only a cross-reference. This proposal will most likely die a quick and painless death, and ST47's actions will be swept under the rug because (per Flo) they'll be forgotten soon anyway. Bellwether B  C  12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand and editors urged
As a response to Arbitrator FloNight's comment:

"Prefer different wording than "urged". If the community requests this change than he needs to implement it as soon as it is feasible."

- Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision

Perhaps "Betacommand and editors directed" would be a better option? Anthøny 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Useless remedies (again)
Betacommand already had an ArbCom case last year and already got a lot of warnings about his conduct. Another warning from ArbCom is useless. He will still be incivil and abuse bots and other things. Then we will have another ArbCom case about BetacommandBot a few months later. There must be a "actionable remedy". Something like "Betacommand is placed on civility parole" or "BetacommandBot must shut down".

ArbCom, please respond and change the remedies. Stop ignoring the problem.

--Kaypoh (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps ArbCom actually sees the issue here. Instead of just looking at me they see the whole picture and realize that the issues in this case come from both sides. everyone involved in the case has yolk on their face. βcommand 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the "Betacommand instructed" remedy? Will you listen to ArbCom? Yes, better to have remedies about both sides. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, BC. The issue is the problems caused by your incivility and misuse of your bot. There are tangential issues as well, but those are the two big ones. The only one with "yoke" (I think you meant "yolk") on their face is you--and perhaps arbcom if you're back here again for the same issues in six months. Bellwether B  C  04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bellwether, you fail to see the root of the issue also, something I think the ArbCom actually got right. You are only seeing one side of the issue. For those who interact with me, know that I am normally very civil and helpful. But as with any animal keep poking it with a stick and it just might attack. users on both sides of the issue have screwed up, if you cannot see that then there is a bigger issue here. βcommand 2 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that no one else had erred. My contention is that no is even half as culpable as you are in this landing at the feet of arbcom. And it's disturbing to see you still using the "cornered animal" rhetoric. It's not helpful, and--frankly--not a legitimate reason for behaving in the ways you have. Bellwether B  C  14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out you have zero understanding and background on the issues here. since you have no understandinf of the issues there is no point in trying to maintain a logical discussion with you. βcommand 2 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You prove, over and over, that milquetoast remedies will change nothing in your behavior. The above post reinforces this point, as you feel it necessary to somehow claim that I have "zero understanding and backround on the issues here", and that there is "no point in trying to maintain a logical discussion with" me. You're incredibly rude, uncivil, and have indicated that given similar circumstances (your "cornered animal" logic) you will continue to feel justified in doing so. This is beyond unacceptable. Bellwether B  C  19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty clear that the root causes remain, and Beta has learned nothing. I too am disappointed to see so much time being taken to do nothing.  Surely doing nothing could be done much faster than this?! Friday (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Friday, Just because the results that you wanted did not happen (me being indef banned). the root cause may still exist, and will always exist, it has been addressed. βcommand 2 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a middle ground between no action and indef banned. You shouldn't assume that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see you indef banned. I disagree with you frequently, yet I don't want to see you indef banned. The message that is coming across is that better organisation (and spreading of the load), more educating of the community, and less incivility, is what is needed. This is not new stuff, but I for one am going to be more focused in trying to see those goals achieved. There will always be a problem, though, if bot operators and script users tag images at a rate faster than the community can keep up. There needs to be a general reduction in the volume of the problem, to make it more manageable, and that will ultimately have to involve a reduction in the volume of image uploading. I would suggest serious efforts are made in that direction, maybe requiring accounts to be weeks old before uploading. But before that happens, it would be good to have some real data - what proportion of the uploads are done by accounts that are only a few days old? Answers to simple questions like that would help us work towards a better management of the image workflow. Simply trying to hose things down periodically is causing problems (anger in the less policy-knowledgeable sections of the community) and is actually not really achieving that much (boilerplate rationales can only go so far). The most useful thing to come out of this is, I think, the data on how many images use each non-free template. But has anyone done a sumcheck to see if the totals of non-free images and free images matches the total? The difference will presumably be media files such as sounds and video clips, but if data exists on filename extensions, that could be taken into account. This all leads back to the evidence I presented, to the effect that existing data and stats are poor. More data will help improve the efforts of those working in the image namespace. Carcharoth (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Role, remit, and composition of the BAG.
I was going to add this to the Carcharoth section, above, but since this is much less wide-ranging, I'll place it in separately.

On the principles #10 group, specifically, and the lack of any remedies in this area: I believe there's a systematic gap between the (albeit extremely vague, and only sporadically expresssed) expectations of the community at large, and the internal workings of the BAG. The former tends to expect scrutiny of the logic of a task, and the general consensus for same. The latter has a strong tendency to value the input of "technical people" over those of other users (regardless of whether technical issues are part of the typical BRFA entry, controversial or not -- which they're frankly overwhelmingly not). The last time it was suggested that "non-technical" people be included in the BAG, this was roundly shouted down, most stridently of all by -- surprise, surprise -- one Betacommand. I think this speaks volumes for the underlying issues. (As does that BC is on the BAG at all, given the many, many past "incidents".) Sooner or later, either the BAG has to recognise that consensus is the most important aspect of its work; or else, bot-approval will have to be refactored in such a way that the BAG takes care only of such technical issues as actually arise, and leaves the actual task-approval to someone else. For its part, the community needs to take note of the fact that the bureaucrat corps has stepped aside from any active involvement in this process, so it's being left entirely to the BAG. If the community is only going to involve itself in the working of bot approval only after it's become wikidrama on AN/I, then it shouldn't be too surprised that those occur with some frequency. There's talk over at the BAG right now about some sort of reform, but also a great deal of resistance to any real change. (The familiar charge of "disruption" has been bandied about in relation to comment critical of this state of affairs.) While it looks as if ArbCom proposes to do nothing about this right now, but I'd strongly urge it to revisit this issue as part of its 60-day review, if nothing has substantially changed in the meantime. Alai (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont reject non tech people for BAG. What I do object is users that have had zero activity/experiance with bots jumping in and approvig trying to approve bots. Instead I have said, hang around BRFA and comment, give your opinion and once you show that you understand bots then ask to join BAG. I my objections that I raised are easily handled if a user is willing to deminstrate that they know what they are talking about prior to being put into a place of leadership. βcommand 2 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that BAG avoids taking leadership on difficult issues. When it suits people, BAG can take leadership on issues such as protecting a bot request or speedying a bot request, but when it is asked to address problems such as a bot doing unapproved tasks, or with-holding/overturning a controversial bot request until community consensus has been demonstrated, or at least that a trial run has been done under full scrutiny of the community, then BAG dithers or hides behind the "we only deal with technical stuff" line. In particular, appealing or overturning a BAG approval is next to impossible. I agree with GRBerry's evidence, where he correctly pointed out that your task had minimal discussion at BAG, and indeed was only later discussed at a noticeboard. The discussion should have come before the bot request. I've followed some bot requests, and some are strange - almost like bot operators are indeed de facto implementing their version of policy without regard to what the wider opinions are. I would have more respect for BAG if they were more ruthless with taking away approval when they need to. It shouldn't be a big deal to have approval withdrawn until more discussion has taken place. Reapproval would then follow, but withdrawing the approval would force the operators to up the quality of their arguments and address policy, not just technical concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have said take the issues to WT:BRFA and they are addressed there with respect to issues with tasks. βcommand 2 18:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking of which, there is a comment over there about your bot that you haven't responded to yet. Scroll down to the bottom, the bit that says: "I notice that BetaCommandBot is still tagging images, and leaving the same old red-boxes-o-jargon that it always has. Now that other bots are doing a better job, with more comprehensible messages, do we really want this?" - how would you suggest WP:BAG show leadership in this issue, with different bots doing the same task and leaving different messages? Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's complete incoherence about what the BAG is, or should be, doing, even within the current BAG. In the above-mentioned discussion, opinions were expressed that the BAG was "arbcom for bots", and conversely that they're doing what developers would otherwise be doing.  I'd disagree with both of those, but they're certainly fairly divergent takes on its function.  And there's massive variation from case to case:  as I mentioned, most BRFAs have very little in the way of technical discussion (equally, many have little discussion on consensus, and in both instances precedent does play a role), but in a recent case, Betacommand (funny how that name keeps coming up in the context of such examples...) announced that a technical change was in his view (not that he expressed it as being simply his view) sufficient to withdraw task approval entirely, and require a re-filing from scratch, despite the task itself not having changed at all.  Whereas all sorts of scope-creep of existing bots, if not to say entirely unapproved tasks, occurs, without the BAG taking any action whatsoever.  Without broader input as to the role of the BAG, I fully expect this to continue for the foreseeable future, as witnessed by the numerous "it's fine as it is, we're the experts, we know exactly what we're doing" contributions here, and elsewhere.  Alai (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of BC's memory, and calrity on everyone else's part, please see this discussion. Now, if you're not longer of the view that "non-programmers" may not join the BAG, "should not be approving bots", and ought to confine themselves to offering comments, I'll be glad to file that under the "more rejoicing in heaven" category.  Alai (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont have time at the moment to explain that comment but you miss-understood that comment. If a user shows that they understand bots, (read not non-technical "observers"), Just because you dont program does not mean that you cannot join BAG. read that comment as people who have no clue about bots, bot policy, and basic abilities of what can and cannot be done with bots, should not be approving bots. If any given user wants they can start commenting on BRFA's and giving their opinion. and can request to join BAG. just because you cannot program does not automatically prevent you from joining BAG. what does automatically prevent you is having no clue what your talking about when working with bots. βcommand 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that BAG doesn't really take a stand anywhere but on BRFA pages is that most of us (this is why I don't, at least) is that we don't think we can speak for the whole group, and don't really have a private area we can put forward a vote. Perhaps if other members of BAG were willing to use, for example, WT:BAG, we could start seeing more of an 'appeal' process and the ability for BAG to 'order' a bot operator to do something. For the hell of it, if anyone else in BAG agrees with me, let me know and we can try a vote thingy in regards to the warning template issue, and see if that works out. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One user suggested a private mailing list. I suppose this is out of the remit of this case, but would that work? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because making important decisions on private mailing lists has gone over so well with the community in the past?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. (Though, ArbCom, for one, has a private mailing list, that no one really complains about. And a private wiki too! If only we were as cool as the ArbCom...) Publicly, such as on BAG's talk page, seems feasible? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the former idea was pretty reasonable, personally.
 * However, my feeling is that at this point, any ad hoc solution cobbled together on the basis of the current composition of the BAG, with limited input from the community at large -- and as has in effect been the case to this point, with the BAG deterring inout from the community at large, contrary to its intermittently stated purpose in that area -- is going to prove to be fairly unsatisfactory. Or come to that, with some other composition of the BAG, selected on some basis that does not itself attract significantly wider community participation.  (I'm actutely aware that such solutions require the willing co-operation of both the BAG and the rest of the community, and I'm fairly skeptical on both counts.  Or some more drastic resolution in the longer-term, which is what I fear will happen, after several more iteration of WikiDrama.)  Alai (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ST47 the talkpage is a good place to start, but PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND COUNTRY do not vote. βcommand 23:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Review and future remedies
I was just nosing about the Arb pages, and I was wondering about proposed remedies 5 and 5.1 (Review and future remedies). The ArbCom has always reserved the right to review, modify, amend, enhance, expand, pare back, withdraw, or reopen its decisions; no explicit remedy that effect has ever been necessary, as the right to reconsider is assumed. Noting that administrators are free to take independent action not specifically authorized by a remedy in order to prevent disruption also strikes me as superfluous; in general admins are always free to use their powers in line with community norms except where such usage directly contradicts an ArbCom- or Foundation-imposed finding or policy.

If I were to guess at the intent of these proposed remedies, I would interpret them as statements that the community is 'on notice', that the ArbCom is keeping an eye on things, and that the Committee is – perhaps – willing to be more open to rapidly imposing additional remedies should a need present itself. Perhaps the Committee is also more willing than usual to evaluate and explicitly endorse (or reject) community-imposed measures that may arise following this case. Finally, the remedies may be read as a warning&mdash;"We're going to give you one last chance to act like reasonable adults, but if you screw this one up we're getting out the big guns: loss of privileges, topic bans, short-leash paroles, etc.".

I am concerned that – as written – remedies 5 and 5.1 may be read by the more lawyerly types as a suggestion that the ArbCom no longer considers the principles therein to be assumed. The statement "Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur." may lead the naive reader to (mis)understand that under normal circumstances admins are not allowed to engage in actions touching on an Arbitration case that aren't explicitly enumerated in the case's remedies.

Perhaps it would be best to more directly state the Committee's intent here, wherever it goes beyond accepted Arbitration practices (if it does). If the Committee wishes to reaffirm or emphasize certain accepted conventions or principles, those points could be acknowledged in the Principles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TenOfAllTrades has correctly summarized the intent of my remedy proposals as well as our general practices. I personally consider the meaning and intent of the proposals to be clear, and I would prefer not to delay the completion of the case by adding additional principles or wording that would have to be voted on from scratch, but anyone evincing the type of confusion that TenOfAllTrades describes may be referred to this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of interest, possibly, is the following sequence:
 * discussion (advertised and allowed time to complete)
 * Change was made, edit warring ensued over a week later
 * AN thread about this
 * New talk page discussion
 * It seems to me that both sides are seriously entrenched here. Ideology seems to be one problem. Finding a practical wording is another. Any ideas on how to move things forward? Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like things are OK for now: NFCC Criterion 8 debate. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That page protection again
I'm actually beginning to regret having asked User:ST47 to unprotect Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. The recent page history makes depressing reading. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks to have become quite a car crash, but, I am concerned at the fact SQL can just remove himself from the 'archived record' of the approval without anything more than just an edit summary. Anyone looking at that page would be none the wiser (and such an edit would appear to be the same as editing a closed debate that BC is reverting others for). MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I'll raise it on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What, I'm not allowed to 'quit' as a botop? You want it put back in, as Carcharoth's done, the talkpage, or, my talkpage, would be the appropriate venue. SQL Query me!  02:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As SQL has pointed out, I have raised my concerns here, and notified SQL on his talk page. It is an important general point, whether a bot operator withdrawing invalidates an approval, so I will raise it at WT:BAG as well. Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to apologize for starting the snowball rolling on that. In retrospect, it would have been better not to draw attention to that page. We should have a discussion about image tagging bots, but probably not about that image tagging bot, unless it turns out that someone still intends to run it.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too, I hadn't taken into consideration the whole protection thing, and the arguments surrounding it, when I removed myself. It seemed like the logical way to do it at the time, and, I'd also like to apologize to rspeer and Carcharoth, if I'd lost my cool towards y'all regarding it. SQL Query me!  05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't close!
Don't close with such useless remedies! FoF 3.2.2, 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 pass, so ArbCom agrees that Betacommand has conduct issue. So why close the case with useless remedies like 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3? The useless remedies only say "Betacommand must do this", but never say how to punish Betacommand if he ignores the remedies and continues to be incivil and abuse bots. I bet he will. If ArbCom cannot or don't want to punish him, basically means it is OK to incivil or abuse bots.

ArbCom always ignores the problems. I give up.

--Kaypoh (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If what I think is right, I think it basically means that the community should take the initiative in performing appropriate sanctions; just that there's now an Arbitration case which strengthens the situation. x42bn6 Talk Mess  07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The community doesn't have the will to deal with BC, which is why the case ended up here. Clearly, the arbcom doesn't have the will to do so either (Nor do they have the will to deal with BC's friends who misuse their tools helping him out, but I digress.). "Urging" BC to do things is like taking a leak into a stiff breeze: it temporarily makes you feel better, you look quite silly doing so, and it doesn't accomplish anything except to leave you all wet. Bellwether B  C  21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If one were an eternal optimist, one might hope that arbcom plan to monitor Beta's behaviour for continuation of its more problematic aspects, and take action on that basis, per their followup remedy. (Or, 'remedy' that's a notion to consider maybe getting a remedy some time in the future.)  However, given that the massive incivility, the expressions of ownership of the bot approvals process, and the erratic and inconsistent decisions and statements in that context (and otherwise) have continued unabated during and in relation to this case, it appears he's concluded that the arbcom plan on doing nothing with any real teeth.  It's becoming hard to be an optimist around here.  Alai (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why some of us have just left. Bellwether B  C  13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)