Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Means of contributing

2) Contributors to Wikipedia may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wikignoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Wikipedia policies, in any or all of these areas.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Decorum

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

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] User conduct

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Free and non-free content

5) The English Wikipedia, like other Wikimedia Foundation projects, is primarily based upon free content. Free content includes text and media that are either in the public domain or are licensed under a policy-compliant free license. Images and other media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the non-free content criteria ("NFCC", formerly "fair use criteria" or "FUC").

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Non-free images and media

6) Wikipedia:Non-free content, key elements of which are policy, stipulates that non-free images and other media may be used only under certain specific circumstances. The source of the image, the provision under which it is used, and the article where it appears must be documented. This policy serves as the project-specific implementation of the Wikimedia Foundation resolution on licensing policy.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Made minor editorial changes (UC please verify that these are acceptable). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Paul August ☎ 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. And I should like to emphasise that these requirements mentioned are essential components of the policy in terms of implementing the resolution. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Non-compliant non-free media

7) Images and other media that do not meet the requirements described by the non-free content criteria should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. Unless the non-compliance with policy is blatant and cannot be fixed, the uploader or any other interested editor should be provided with a reasonable amount of time (generally seven days under current policy) within which to address the problem with the image. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted. Similarly, a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Role of editors who specialize in image review

8) Editors who review images uploaded to Wikipedia and identify those that fail to satisfy the NFCC or are missing the necessary documentation play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers who are the foundation of the project's future growth, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged or ensure that those questions are answered by others.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Response of users whose images are questioned

9) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned, or any other editor who believes the image should be retained, should address the matter promptly and civilly. In doing so, it is best to bear in mind that having and adhering to policies in this area is essential for both ethical and often legal reasons, even though the precise parameters of the policy may be debatable or unclear. Disagreeing with the concerns raised, disputing the interpretation of policy as applied to a specific image, and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate responses, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

Support:
  1. Wording improved per some helpful comments on the workshop.Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Though I dislike the ownership of images alluded to. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Deletion of unfree images

9.1) Throughout the history of the project, the deletion of unfree images has been controversial. Editors who upload multiple images that are of, at best, marginal compliance with the non-free content policy are understandably upset when their work is undone. Conversely, editors with strong feelings about reuse or the open-content mission of Wikipedia are understandably upset when content of doubtful compliance is allowed to stand.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1/ Too one-sided, picks two of the 4 cases both focussing on one view. Covers the main case of uploaders of doubtful/marginal content on one side and strong feelings of open-content supporters seeking deletion on the other, and suggests the whole issue is about doubtful uploaders. But it isn't. It misses out the other two side: those who upload useful possibly valid material which is possibly not borderline or doubtful but feel it is deleted through over-fervor and rigidity of view, and the part of the community that favors compliance but sees the present implementation as too extreme. We can't fairly address this dispute if the basics exclude one side's concerns that policy may be over-enforced, not just under-complied. 2/ Possibly more like a FoF about communal attitudes to image deletion. Is this really best listed as a "principle"? Summary: Good wording so far as it goes, but doesn't work for me due mostly to 1. See possible alt: FoF #1.
  2. Too simplistic, per FT2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sub-optimal, per Brad. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per FT2. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer the combination of the alternative principles above combined with the proposed findings below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role of bots and scripts

10) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Though perhaps this should mention that "bots" specifically means scripts running on separate accounts, unless that's already obvious. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Code is Law

11) Bots are in effect an extension of the MediaWiki software. Due to their efficiency of operation and the presumption that bots' tasks have prior approval from the community, bot operation is a de facto articulation of project policy. Therefore, like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. No more so than manual high-speed editing is an articulation of policy. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. In favour of 11.1. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Agree with most but not all of the wording. Prefer 11.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Prefer 11.1. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Prefer 11.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 11.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibilities of bot operators

11.1) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Unfree images

X) Throughout the history of the project, the inclusion criteria, handling, and deletion processes for unfree images have been a source of dispute. Aspects of this dispute include: gradual restriction over time of usable material, inappropriate uploads, missing mandatory image information, outbreak of conflict when an image's inclusion or tagging is considered problematic, and philosophical differences on free and non-free material. There is also a disconnect between written policy, and actual norms "in the field". As a result, although much material is correctly identified as insufficiently documented or possibly requiring deletion, it is routinely disputed to what extent policy is over-enforced as well as under-complied, and whether the bots and users handling unfree image review are appropriately performing the job as anticipated by policy and the community.

Possible alternative for UC's proposed principle 3. Not yet voting, may need refining. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand

1) Betacommand (talk · contribs) is an experienced contributor who has edited Wikipedia since November 2005, through his regular user account and through bot accounts including BetacommandBot (talk · contribs). In addition to other interests, Betacommand has devoted a substantial portion of his editing, directly and through the bots, to enforcement of the non-free content criteria through image-tagging.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Prior Arbitration case

2) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, decided May 3, 2007, this Committee unanimously found that Betacommand, who was then an administrator, had committed a series of errors and misjudgments. Among other concerns were issues relating to the deletion of images, the misuse of automated tools and related communication issues, and incidents of alleged disruption to prove a point. Betacommand was desysopped, but was not otherwise sanctioned.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Continued participation

3) Since the prior Arbitration decision, Betacommand has continued to edit with an emphasis on bot-programming and image-tagging work. During this period, Betacommand and BetacommandBot have played an extremely significant role in enforcing the non-free content criteria and policies with respect to tens of thousands of actually or allegedly non-compliant images and media. In carrying out this role, Betacommand becomes a de facto voice of the project to editors, frequently including new editors, whose images he has challenged. Responses to Betacommand's work from affected editors have ranged from praise and numerous barnstars listed here, to legitimate questions and criticisms, to unacceptable expressions of overt hostility and harassment.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Problematic behavior

4) Although much of Betacommand's continued work since the prior case is commendable, several aspects of his user conduct over the past year have been problematic, including the following:

(A) Betacommand has often been grossly incivil to other editors and has made a series of personal attacks against other editors, generally in the context of disputes concerning operation of his bots.
(B) Betacommand has not communicated in an effective fashion with many editors whose images he has tagged for deletion.
(C) In February 2008, in admitted retaliation for criticism by another user, Betacommand engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point by causing BetacommandBot to "spam" about 50 automated image-tagging notices on that user's talkpage even though the images and notices had nothing to do with that user.
(D) In March 2008, after being asked to enable an "opt-out" feature for BetacommandBot, Betacommand created User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out, a page on which users could elect not to receive image-tagging notifications from BetacommandBot. However, in addition to making the legitimate point that users might suffer deletion of their images without prior notification if they opted out of receiving notifications, Betacommand also attempted to impose the unreasonable quid pro quo that users signing the opt-out list "also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." He failed to respond reasonably to widespread criticism that this requirement could not be justified.
(E) Betacommand has utilized his bot for several tasks not within the scope of prior approvals by the Bot Approvals Group. At least until recently, Betacommand did not segregate his automated image-tagging work from other BetacommandBot tasks, which although not required would have facilitated addressing issues involving one disputed task without interfering with the performance of other tasks.
Support:
  1. Could be broken into individual findings if necessary (and I will do so on request of any arbitrator), but the gist is clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I have made (B) more concise, to avoid the sticking point for User:Thebainer, since I think the factual issue is the lack of communication, not the nature of the failings. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yes, I don't disagree on the fundamental factual question. --bainer (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Sorry, it's going to be awkward trying to break this apart now, but I can't support B. It sounds like it's discouraging answering questions by referral to past answers to common questions, which is unreasonable given the amount of work that BetacommandBot does and the resulting volume of queries that are generated. If it were more clearly directed at the mode of referral (currently indiscriminate reference to archives, rather than something like a FAQ), which I can accept is problematic, then I could support that. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption

5) The issues concerning Betacommand's and BetacommandBot's conduct, coupled with overreactions on the part of some other editors and related disputes, have resulted in a series of disputes and disruptions. The level of disruption has been well beyond what a collaborative project should be expected to accept even in a contentious area such as fair-use policy and image-tagging, and must be brought to an end either via dramatically improved user conduct or via sanctions imposed by this committee.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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 instructed

1) Betacommand is thanked for his contributions to the project but is instructed:

(A) To remain civil and to refrain from making personal attacks against any contributor;
(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group; and
(C) To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct such as placing numerous image-tag messages on the talkpage of a user who had nothing to do with the images in question.
Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) First choice by a slight margin over 1.1 for reasons explained there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. I am unsettled by taking the Bot Approvals Group - which was formed AIUI merely to carry out technical assurance - as a policy approval as well. Really, there should be another body which is more governed by policy and less by technical aptitude. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) First choice. James F. (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I share James' concern, although as worded this does not assume or imply any policy setting role for the Bot Approvals Group.
  6. I concur with Paul on James' concern, though perhaps we could add some qualifier to "approvals" (such as "technical") to remove the possibility of that implication. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Second choice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand instructed

1.1) Betacommand is thanked for his contributions to the project but is instructed:

(A) To remain civil and to refrain from making personal attacks against any contributor;
(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group;
(C) To render BetacommandBot "nobots compliant" or excludable on user talkpages (but not on image pages or talkpages), thus allowing users to opt out of receiving notifications; and
(D) To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct such as placing numerous image-tag messages on the talkpage of a user who had nothing to do with the images in question.
Support:
  1. Identical with 1 except for addition of (C) per a request from an arbitrator to offer this alternative. If this version of the proposal passes, the last sentence of (2) would be dropped. For me, second choice (by a slight margin): "nobots" compliance is to me primarily a policy issue, but I can see an argument that we should require it to reduce future tensions in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Works as well. Kirill 00:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. James F. (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (C) is about editor interactions not editorial policy.
  5. First choice. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. On the assumption that it is understood the committee is making a policy precedent on this individual case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Nobots is not (yet) policy. I appreciate that this is intended to be about user communication, as Paul says, but this would inappropriately precipitate the conclusion that it is policy. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
Being cautious, I'm leaning toward oppose. There might be some unintended consequences from C., so I feel that it is best left as a Community decision after a consensus discussion that it is the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Change to oppose. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand and editors urged

2) Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, to seek to have others do so, or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed. Participation by other editors in this process will be a valuable contribution toward addressing the overall situation reflected in the record of this case. Betacommand is also urged to establish an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing any unnecessary conditions on the right to decline to receive notifications.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Prefer different wording than "urged". If the community requests this change than he needs to implement it as soon as it is feasible. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Conditioned on the removal of the last sentence if 1.1 passes.
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support but would be happy to see the alternative wording in 2.1 made additional to this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand and editors urged

2.1) Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, to seek to have others do so, or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed. Participation by other editors in this process will be a valuable contribution toward addressing the overall situation reflected in the record of this case.

Support:
  1. This adds "or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed". Given the amount of tagging that BetacommandBot does, and the volume of queries that are generated as a result, it's unreasonable to expect common questions to be replied to individually. Developing a FAQ would be my recommendation. I've also dropped the part about an opt-out list per my opposition to 1.1 above. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As the original drafter, I would agree to add this additional language to 2 if no one else objects, rather than have to hold the case open for another round of voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Editors advised

3) Editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons. Editors are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas, and are also welcome to challenge the application of policies and criteria in individual cases, but are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. This seems to restate principles 8 and 9 above, but it's worth repeating. I would prefer the stronger "is necessary" rather than "may be necessary", but it's no big deal. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Community input

4) The community, particularly including users with experience in image compliance and tagging work and those knowledgeable about bots and scripts, is urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The review should attempt to ensure:

(A) That the applicable policies and procedures are as straightforward and readily understandable as possible, particularly by new editors and editors new to contributing images as well as by administrators reviewing images tagged for deletion;
(B) That the policies and procedures are enforced in a user-friendly fashion that achieves compliance with policy without unnecessarily offending users or deterring future image contributions;
(C) That all the applicable templates are as clear and informative as possible;
(D) That a clear procedure exists to address disputes that may arise as to the permissibility of a particular image, the labelling of an image, or the use of an image on a particular article; and
(E) That the value that bots and scripts can provide in connection with image processes is maximized while any unnecessary disruption associated with them is minimized.

In addition, the Bot Approvals Group and interested members of the community are urged to assess whether any changes to or updating of the BAG's operations and procedures may be warranted in light of issues raised in this case.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. See my comment above, but yes. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Paul August ☎ 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. This could probably be expanded to urge input on aspects of the bot policy too, which have been touched on in this case. Whether or not bots should be expected to adhere to some opt-out method is the obvious example. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Review and future remedies

5) The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review may be sought after 60 days. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption.

Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC) For me, first choice, but I have added 5.1 as alternate per concerns expressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kirill 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Paul August ☎ 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I don't think it is wise for us to tie our hands by agreeing in advance to wait 60 days before considering any further review.
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Prefer 5.1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Abstain:
This wording might be taken to mean that the Community has to put up with incivility and disruption for 60 more days before administrative action can be taken. Given that this is not the first case on this topic, and instances of poor user conduct by several people have been documented on the evidence page, I think the Community need not wait 60 more days for administrators to take action if serious issues arise in the interim. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Switch to oppose, and support 5.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There was no intent to suggest that appropriate response to any further misconduct should wait 60 days (or any period of time), simply that requests that the committee fully revisit the situation should wait that long (in the hope that they would not be necessary at all). Please feel free to propose an improvement to the wording to address your concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review and future remedies

5.1) The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

Support:
  1. Alternative version of 5 to address the concerns of FloNight and Paul August. For me, second choice, in the hope that this decision will result in the needed changes, including improvements in user conduct, and no time limitation would preclude review sooner in the event of grave cause. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 21:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Happy with this wording; second choice. James F. (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. bainer (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Currently passing, as of 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC), is:

  • Proposed principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.1 (not passing are 9.1 and 11).
  • Proposed findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (X not voted on).
  • Proposed remedies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.1. Not passing are:
    • 1.1 — even if this makes the majority of seven which it is one away from now, I would be less inclined to use it over 1 because of the two opposes and per the "First choice"/"Second choice" ratio.
    • 2.1 — unless I hear opposition either in the voting section for that proposal, or in motion to close votes, I will adopt Thebainer's suggestion (as supported by Newyorkbrad) to add "or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed" to proposed remedy 2.
    • 5.

If any arbitrators have any comments or queries, especially on the 1/1.1 and 2/2.1 remedy proposals, they'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's notes. Unless an arbitrator objects, I will go ahead and make the change to remedy 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close - we seem to be done here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Close. Paul August ☎ 15:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Close. Kirill 19:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)