Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

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

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Username blocks

1) Username blocks should only be made if there is a blatant infringement of the Username policy, community input should be sought otherwise.

1.1) If a username was obviously chosen in bad faith, or if a username is so problematic that it should never appear in article histories (e.g. a very offensive username), then admins may block it on sight. Admins should not block usernames that may have been chosen in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Expanded abbreviation. No comment as yet. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1.1 is adapted from the blocking section of the username policy page. --Tony Sidaway 02:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

2) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Agree with Tony Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Adapted from the Konstable arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bots

3) Bots are fully automated Wikipedia accounts capable of performing preprogrammed actions without the individual authorization of each action by the owner. Users may apply to run a bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and must operate only authorized bots and always within Bot policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. I don't think we've had this before. The definition of a bot may need some work. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I read through an old one, involving some user doing bot deletions that got him desysopped. Milto LOL pia 08:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of bot privileges

4) The onus is on the owner of a bot to demonstrate that he or she is running it in accordance with all relevant policies and in a manner that is beneficial to Wikipedia. If a user fails to satisfy the community that he or she is doing so, the community may remove the authorization, through the Bot approvals group or as a result of the Dispute resolution process.

4.1) The onus is on the owner of a bot to demonstrate that the bot is harmless, is useful, is not a server hog, has been approved, and abides by all guidelines, policies and common practices. If a user fails to satisfy the community that he or she is doing so, the community may remove the authorization, through the Bot approvals group or as a result of the Dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. Based on Bot policy and existing dispute resolution apparatus (the arbitration committee is authorized to revoke bot approvals, for instance). --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4.1 is a variant that adopts the language of the current Bot policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automatic scripts

5) Various semi-automatic scripts are used, some widely distributed and some written by the operator. These scripts enable preprogrammed Wikipedia operations to be performed at high speed, while the user is in constant attendance and makes the final decision for each individual operation. While specific authorization is not required to run a script, the onus is on the user to demonstrate that he operates the script in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and in the interests of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This extends the relevant principles of the bot policy to attended scripts. It's my understanding that Betacommand runs a bot but has also performed rapid blocks via some kind of IRC-based semi-automatic script. --Tony Sidaway 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Currently BAG uses the following terms:
  1. Unsupervised automatic - User runs a bot without being in its presence
  2. Supervised automatic - User runs a bot and watches the edits, but does not have to interact directly
  3. Manually-assisted - User must confirm every change manually
   I just want to be careful of the wording of this type of proposal. There are grey areas between each level, but in general BAG only regulates the first two, however, a manually-assisted bot must be implemented in a fashion that provides it with enough information perform the edit. For example, a manually-assisted bot that finds a spelling mistake and confirms replacement without showing proper context would not be approved under bot policy even though it is manually-assisted. This is why the bot policy reads "Assisted bots don't necessarily need bot approval" because some manually assisted bots do need it, although most do not.
High speed editing (with "large" quantity of edits) always requires approval because it is disruptive to recent changes users and a bot flag is required in these cases. When in doubt, a user should seek approval, because a user can be blocked without notice for perceived violation of bot policy. This is typically due to editing too quickly or a user not providing enough information in edit summaries or on their user pages describing what a bot is doing.
With the introduction of various scripts, the line between bot and user has become unclear. Betacommand's script was in violation of bot policy because of editing speed, but was it in violation of bot policy because it was a semi-automated script? Was it in violation in cases where used as a semi-automated admin script? This is what I'd like to see a proposal deal with if possible. *IF* Betacommand's script did not provide enough context to perform the edit reliably (I have not seen the source code), then should it be treated as an automated bot?
More importantly, does the Wikipedia community feel that script development, automated or manual, should be regulated by BAG (or someone else) to ensure accuracy? Some manually assisted bots are performing trivial and/or uncontroversial tasks and BAG does not want to deal with those requests if possible, but there is a compelling argument to be made that there should be oversight over manual scripts for non-trivial or potentially controversial tasks. Such oversight is in the interest of Wikipedia. While BAG will process these requests, I don't think anyone has sought consensus on this issue or a ruling from arb-com as to whether this is required. -- Ram-Man 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you really want ArbCom to rule on this? Or would it be better to approach the community? Certainly editors are responsible for all their edits, whether made by a fully automated software tool or assisted by a semi-automated tool, and editors who show poor judgement may have their use of tools restricted just as editors who show poor judgement in making manual edits may find themselves under parole or probation. But questions such as, "How fast may an assisted script edit without a bot flag" or "Should admins be allowed to use assisted deletion or blocking scripts and if so, how should such use be governed" seem beyond the scope of the arbitration process. Thatcher131 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
See my comments below, however, I wouldn't mind if ArbCom ruled on something: That all admin scripts must be approved under bot policy (or similar). I believe this to be the clear community consensus, however, there is some confusion over this issue. -- RM 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My proposal has some serious flaws, which I think Ram-Man has exposed. What I'm trying to do is extend the principles of bot policy (that the onus is on the editor) to scripts. I think I should reword to remove the phrase "at high speed" because in my mind speed of operation isn't the issue. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I want ArbCom to rule on this. Afterall, bot policy is working fine with very few problems and additional rulings could just interfere. Plus wider community input is more useful. I just want to make sure that ArbCom doesn't rule in such a way to make bot approvals a miserable experience for all parties involved. My specific problem with this proposal is that for "semi-automatic scripts...specific authorization is not required". I think that usage of the term "automatic" is unclear and more importantly that BAG DOES sometimes require approval for such bots/scripts, especially admin functions. If ArbCom accepted this proposal, it would impose additional limits the power of the BAG, which is the key oversight of bots and scripts. Tony Sidaway has stated his intent to "extend the principles of bot policy", but that is not how I read this proposal. -- RM 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility for automated and semi-automated actions

6) An editor is accountable for all edits, blocks, deletions, or any other logged action or change under their control. Disruptive actions undertaken by automated or semi-automated tools are the editor's responsibility, including ensuring that the tool functions properly and that the edits are appropriate and fully authorised.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I don't know who proposed this, but I prefer it to my own proposals 4 and 5, which get bogged down in the morass of bot policy. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Reworded slightly. I think we can do away entirely with principles 3, 4, and 5. The definition and rules for using the tools should be left to others. Editing responsibly and responding appropriately to concerns is vital no matter how the edits are made. Thatcher131 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, now I feel helpful. I proposed this but didn't have any opinion and am not a aprty, so I didn't leave a comment. Should I sign these when I make new ones so people know who drew them up, or does it matter? Milto LOL pia 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you should sign your proposals. Thatcher131 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Added "and fully authorised" to the responsibilities of the user. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access to automated editing tools

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

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Prop. Thatcher131 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith is also applicable to admin actions

7) Some of the username blocks are based upon events current at the time of blocking. e.g. creation of multiple similar names used for vandalism or pages created and deleted. Admins cannot always remember all the details all the time, unless there is evidence to the contrary Assume good faith should apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I certainly agree with the title, but the body section is vague, and hard to understand. Can you restate more specifically than "specific to given events at given time"? I'm not at all sure what you're trying to express. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to update it, though I'm not sure which part you find unclear. If we have 20 very similar names being created and the first 19 all do vandalism, blocking the 20th before it gets chance to vandalise is not unreasonable. Being asked why you blocked that apparently innocuous name 2 months later may be difficult. --pgk 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the rewrite is an improvement, I understand now. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed --pgk 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, but we should only assume good faith by the admin, if the admin assumed good faith when blocking. I would strongly support this if Betacommand can show further evidence that these blocks were infact correct Ryanpostlethwaite 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I will dig though my blocklog and attempt to remember/gather evidence but please keep in mind that I dont keep records of why I blocked. and that this occurred over a month ago and the rule when fighting vandals is Revert, Block, Ignore. and the only reason that the fatterwhales sticks out is because there was a RFCN and a SSPA case, along with a note on my talkpage Betacommand 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
PS another case in which my block was over turned and re-blocked [1]
Not sure pointing them out helps much. If I blocked randomly for the next 100 users created and some got unblocked, I'm sure some of those too would turn out to be trolls/vandals/socks etc. but the block wouldn't be indicative of any particular good judgement on my part --pgk 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
These are not random blocks, Im gathering data to show some patterns that I observed and blocked for in Feb. And Ryan also asked for more evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This should be trimmed somewhat if it's a proposed principle. It contains some elements of a finding. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On viewing Pgk's explanation, I think the underlying problem here is failure to annotate administrator actions adequately. If an admin himself can't work out why he made a block a few months ago, then that means Wikipedia itself has no knowledge of the circumstances of the block. We assume good faith, but that doesn't mean it's okay to make administrator actions with empty or inadequate summaries. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I think they'd say it was blocked for the reason in the block log, the precise detail maybe somewhat lost. It is probably somewhat the nature of the beast when things you are involved in a large number of actions (be that blocks, deletions, page protections etc.). I'm sure I can dig through many an admins block log and find entries just listing "sock of x", just "sock" or even "sock of someone" based on behaviour apparent at the time, not many admins will be documenting their precise reasoning. --pgk 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

10) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

11) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Hasty username blocks

1) Betacommand (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) has blocked usernames carelessly and in haste, citing username policy in the block reasons. These included blocks against long-term editors and administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Apparently no longer supported by proposer. Should probably be withdrawn, amended, or a new version proposed. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Don't have links, sorry. Milto LOL pia 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall any username blocks of "long-term editors and administrators." I thought he was working off a feed listing brand-new accounts. Newyorkbrad 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
? Maybe I'm wrong. I thought I saw a link in the statements of him blocking some admin forever for having a username to similar to something or other. Let me go look again. Milto LOL pia 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't find it :( Maybe I'm thinking about something else. I guess this is worthless then. Milto LOL pia 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be no evidence to support this proposed finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Underscores the need to actually add evidence to the evidence page before jumping in on the findings, eh? Thatcher131 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I'm just thinking ahead, since I thought this would come up. You're a clerk, if you feel any of these should be wiped and re-added later for process' sake, feel free. Milto LOL pia 16:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unauthorized automated username blocks

2) BetaCommand has used an unauthorized automated WP:BOT tool to block usernames for username violations. Many of these blocks were unwarranted, directed at established contributors, or later overturned at WP:RFC/NAME.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
While this proposal appears to be based in part on known facts, there are serious allegations there that are as yet unsupported by the evidence. --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it will be once people submit more evidence. I'm just brainstorming for lulz on what is sure to come up; dismissing this based on no supporting evidence while knowing there is evidence to come seems rather pointless. Milto LOL pia 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use Wikipedia for "lulz". You could be right that there will be evidence. However to make my rejection clear I'll state that I have no reason to believe that there will ever be evidence that "many of these blocks were unwarranted, directed at established contributors." That they were unwarranted and may have driven new editors away is pretty serious. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever, I didn't read anywhere that taking WP seriously was a requirement for editing. I'm much more interested in what's going on with this case then crusading against people who edit for enjoyment rather than other much more serious and important reasons, or in fighting off said crusaders. My point is, there will be evidence so I put this up, that's it. Really nothing to work up a sweat over. Milto LOL pia 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary confusion

3) Several of the blocks made by Betacommand were appropriate but used an incorrect summary. For instance, he blocked User:Fatterwhales with a summary referring to the username policy, while the actual reason for the block was that it was a new account of vandal Fatwhales. The community was unaware of the latter, so overturned the block because there was no violation of username policy.

3.1) Betacommand has caused confusion by failing to provide a clear summary in the blocking summary field when performing blocks. For instance the block of User:Fatterwhales was misinterpreted by the community as an incorrect username block, when it was a pre-emptive block of ongoing vandalism using a series of disposable usernames.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support in prinicipal, if Betacommand can show evidence that confusion over multiple (not just one or two) username blocks was merely down to an edit summary Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Based on evidence by Betacommand. Radiant! 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Could be worded better. I've proposed 3.1 as an attempt at clarity. --Tony Sidaway 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3.1 works for me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking back at the InShaneeee case, I think we learned a lot about how problems with established, trusted editors tend to start with poor communication and persist when the parties fail to set up a good, civil line of communication. This failure to label his blocks correctly is a sign of that, and I note that others have complained that Betacommand failed to respond in a timely manner to queries about some of his blocks on his user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand was blocked for historic actions

4) Discussion of an historic problem was added to a current discussion.Betacommand was mistakenly blocked to prevent further "bad" blocks, despite it not being a current issue and one which Betacomnand believed to have been resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed --pgk 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the blocking administrator acknowledged this was a mistake and it was immediately reversed. I don't believe it should count against any of the parties. Newyorkbrad 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur. As the admin who unblocked him, this was a misunderstanding and should be discounted. -- RM 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what it being a mistake has to do with it or not, this is a finding of fact and this factually occurred, this is not trying to draw a conclusion. That aside given that part of this case is Betacommand acting in good faith and a less than desirable outcome occurring, the fact that we believe we should ignore the good faith actions of another admin, even though the outcome was not ideal seems to be relevant. Not to mention that Betacommand had responded to previous criticism is this area, yet it seems to have haunted him also seems relevant. --pgk 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really relevant to the case. Some people introduced old stuff to illustrate a historical problem. Others misread and blocked in haste. The error was fixed quickly and (as far as I know) amicably. Business as usual. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Betacommand forbidden from username blocks

1) Betacommand is prohibited from making blocks related to username policy for X weeks/months/years/indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I don't support this, someone is either trusted or not with the tools, and if they are, they should be able to perform all tasks Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Username blocks are a very small part of adminship, he can just concentrate his use of the tools elsewhere. It's not like it's a major problem, other sysops can handle it I'm sure. Milto LOL pia 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Comment by others:
This would be independent of sysop status, i.e., even if not desysopped, or desysopped and later resysopped. Might make an alternative to desysopping, for this issue anyway. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not supported by the evidence. He had voluntarily ceased username blocks some weeks prior to the application for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If he plans to reverse that decisions, it may become and issue and perhaps should be nipped in the bud. If he won't reverse his decision, then this remedy wouldn't do him any harm. Milto LOL pia 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, he could reverse his decision and comply with the Username policy forever after. This is a trusted member of the Wikipedia community. Clarification of the username policy should be enough. --Tony Sidaway 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that, learning from mistakes seems not be be his forte, otherwise this wouldn't be in arbitration. I have no strong opinions about it though, it doesn't affect me and I'm just brainstorming. Milto LOL pia 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a fan of this sort of result, per User:ryanpostlethwaite the tools are a package, either the community trusts you with them or they don't. I can't see it as too healthy anyway, what if he blocks for username but dresses it up as something else?, what if someone accuses him of that?... Also since this issue seems to have been resolved anyway, it seems a needless remedy. --pgk 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BetaCommand prohibited from admin bot tools

2) BetaCommand is prohibited from using any automatic or semi-automatic tools to perform administrative actions (save rollback)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Not sure about this. On one hand, it doesn't seem to be an ongoing problem, on the other hand it seems to have cropped up as a problem in Betacommand's behavior on at least two separate occasions and in two different contexts (image deletions and username blocks). --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, how much time is allowable between "ok, sorry I won't do it again" does a person have to put between repeated screwups of a very, very very clear policy to keep it from being actionable? It's not like the policy is well-worded to allow it to be ignored at one's discretion, like those irritating hindrances caled WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It's very straight-forward: don't use unauthorized bots. Just don't. This has happened several times now? Not to be analyzingt he arbitrators, but I doubt they would've accepted this if they thought "oh it's ok, he won't do it again." Milto LOL pia 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware there is no evidence that Betacommand used unauthorized bots more than once. If he did, we should have a finding to that effect. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, since it would imply that use of automatic tools for admin tasks is acceptable elsewhere, not sure the community as a whole supports that notion. --pgk 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BetaCommand desysopped

3) For misuse of admin tools in tandem with failure to follow bot policy, BetaCommand is desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Not advocating, but it's on people's minds. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea, the benefits of keeping Betacommand sysopped outweigh the negatives Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand placed on administrative parole

4) Betacommand is placed on administrative parole for a period of one year.

4.1) Betacommand is placed on administrative parole for a period of one year. In this time all of his administrator functions are open to scrutiny. If further evidence of abuse occurs, The arbitration committee will re-open the case immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What is administrative parole, please? May we have a link? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Similar to the proposal below, if there are any further cases of abuse, Arbcom are entitled to reopen the case immediately. It also means that people will scrutinise his edits, and look out for further abuse. It is a less severe punishment to desysopping. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Support; best idea I've seen so far. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Administrative parole should be a specific remedy. The words by themselves don't mean anything. Under what circumstances, by whom, and with what measures, could the parole be invoked? --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Leave it with me and I'll try and come up with something more specific Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Proposal 4.1 now made Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't arbcom been rejecting admin parole lately? Milto LOL pia 16:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure on other cases, but to me, in this case, it isn't something which merits desysopping at present, but it is something that needs to be looked out for in the future Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
4.1 isn't administrative probation/parole. Probation/parole in the Wikipedia context implies subject to immediate sanction by administrators for disruption (blocking, banning, etc). The process described here is "continued jurisdiction." --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand strongly cautioned

5) For use of inappropriate scripts and username blocks, Betacommand is strongly cautioned. Any further abuse may result in desysopping

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I believe all the users involved with this arbitration case are administrators, so I would like all the involved parties to be cautioned and reminded they should be contacting a fellow admin to discuss problems before posting on prominent noticeboards and such, should the ArbCom find lapses in their behaviour. I believe, away from the specifics of this case, there seems to be a serious lack of communication between some administrators when reviewing other administrators actions. I'm not suggesting cabalism, but a little more collegialism would help things out around here. -- Nick t 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You should probably propose that as a separate item. Though I'm not overly convinced, I certainly agree there was some haste involved and digging up old issue didn't help, but how many times do things get discussed quietly before a greater visibility is required? --pgk 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Betacommand_Workshop_d806.html"