Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statements by non-parties

[edit] Statement by JzG

No, actually, Maxim states it really well. A job needs doing, but some people dispute it needs doing, and those who don't dispute it spend a lot of time trying to pour oil on troubled waters. A really unambiguous ruling on what should be done, by whom,and in what way, would be tremendously helpful. The community (for various values thereof) is doing a crap job of fixing this.

I concur with other comments: the problem is not BetacommandBot per se or Betacommand in particular, it's the handling of unfree content. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by AGK

The dispute over Betacommand's bot account is a long-running one, and one which has attracted large volumes of controversy over its history. BCB has been blocked more times than one cares to count, and has long been criticised for reasons varying from design faults, to a lack of publicly-available source code.

The Community has been attempting to resolve this dispute for some time now, and I believe that we are making progress. The creation of WP:AN/B does typify the editorial community's desire to resolve this dispute peacefully, and with a resolution which awards the least amount of drama possible to either side. Although I believe that the AN discussion requires more focus for its discussions to yield better results, I do not believe the dispute has progressed to levels where arbitration is necessary: the community is more than capable of bringing this dispute to a resolution.

Similarly, whilst I can understand the reasoning behind this case being filed at the present moment, I believe that the case is still premature and unnecessary. AGK (contact) 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Sceptre

I don't think this request should be accepted as the issue would largely moot itself before a case would reach the voting stage. If it is accepted, it should be at a neutral title like "fair use tagging", as neither side is being angelic in this case. Will (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know what call it, but all this mess revolved around BCBot. Hopefully the clerks would find a better nake. ;-) Maxim(talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GSV Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

This drone has no known serious unresolved software faults, it's doing an essential job and it's well under control, if somewhat eccentric. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dystopos

I don't know if I qualify as an involved party since I haven't engaged in much of the discussion before. I hope to contribute to this discussion because it does go back to root issues, which I feel competent to understand better than behavioral issues in recent disputes. -- For me, the root issue is whether, given the monumental task of overhauling nonfee content descriptions, it is better for Wikipedians to (A) execute a project to involve hardworking contributors in the identification and correction of problems or to (B) unleash an investigative robot to seek out people whose contributions don't pass muster and nag them until they correct the problem themselves. -- I believe it is important to prefer the former as a matter of Wikiquette. I make reference to Wikipedia:Be bold ("If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." [emphasis mine]) and Wikipedia:Incivility, which cautions against "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another". -- By current policy, image uploaders have a lot of help and guidance toward meeting WP's non-free content policy. Many images now being tagged by Betacommandbot were uploaded long ago when generic templates for screenshots, company logos, book covers, and the like were assumed to be sufficient. So even if throwing blame at recent uploaders can be justified, the approach toward older content with no apparent bad faith on the part of the uploader, may need to be more collaborative than condemnatory. --Dystopos (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by MBisanz

Well I was in the middle of drafting my own RFAR in this matter at User:MBisanz/RFAR. If this matter is accepted, and I believe it should of course, I'll just re-draft as evidence. If this version is rejected, I will probably continue with my original plan of waiting until after the March 23rd deadline, per Carcharoth's suggestion. For those viewing my draft, I've only reviewed the edits of Betacommand for the last month. I am still in the process of reviewing the edits of Betacommand2 and Betacommandbot. I've finished my statement as far as I can for an RFAR of this focus and time. MBisanz talk 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since its taking time to gather all the diffs, I'm transcluding what I have so far so it will update as I add to it.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I bring this request with a heavy heart. Having supported the process to make all images fairuse compliant and defended Betacommand numerous times against what I felt were unfair attacks I believed that the end of the legacy image tagging project would result in an end to the constant debate, however, I now believe I misjudged the situation. Over the last several months Betacommand has violated several behavioral guidelines. While this would normally not be enough to warrant an Arbcom, he has also violated Bot Policy on multiple occasions with his bot, BetacommandBot (talk · contribs). This is not an isolated incident, but rather a lengthy pattern of behavior in various forums. Prior attempts as dispute resolution have been unsuccessful in part due to his refusal to actively engage in meaningful conversation and in part due to the ad-hoc nature of the pre-Arbcom DR steps. Specifically, I take issue with:

  1. The irresponsible spamming of MickMacNee's talk page. WP:DR is not an optional process to be followed when we feel like it.
  2. Disregarding the explicit wording of Bot Policy in using a bot on People Categories.
  3. Running up the edit count of the mainpage without prior approval
  4. Continuing to refuse to communicate with regard to good faith inquiries and community consensus
  5. Responding to matters in an uncivil manner despite being aware of the policies and having been warned multiple times. What some might call a fait accompli.

For the record, I state the following policies and guidelines I feel Betacommand has violated, with supporting diffs.

Policies

Guidelines

In this comment created after the filing of this RFAR, Betacommand describes he knew that the removal of the redlinked cats would cause widespread article disruption and force the hand-correction of thousands of articles by editors watching them, this running the risk of extreme collateral damage from unwatched articles and userspace violations. He continues to contend this he acted correctly in doing this purposefully disruptive action on a Bot account without approval. This seems to directly contravene the bot policy that bots must be harmless, useful, not consume unnecessary resources, performs only tasks for which there is consensus, and adheres to relevant policies and guidelines. As far as I can tell, thousands of wrong edits to force users to correct immaterial errors is a vast waste of resources, is harmful both to watched and unwatched articles, is something that has no consensus, and does not adhere to the policies against making a WP:POINT. Further, it should not be up to Bots to motivate people to do thing that are not specifically required by policy. They are supposed to do tedious work to save human editors from having to do it, not force human editors to do more tedious work faster. MBisanz talk 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Crotalus horridus

I see the problems as fourfold:

  • Betacommand won't release his bot's source code. Since we are an open-content project, I do not find this acceptable. We shouldn't have "black boxes" editing Wikipedia.
  • Betacommand is not very good at interpersonal communication. This means that an already touchy task becomes a constant flashpoint. I think there are other users who could probably handle a non-free content bot with better communication skills and less drama.
  • Betacommand often uses his bot for unapproved tasks (like adding garbage edits to the Main Page). Since his bot performs multiple tasks, this makes it almost impossible to block for any length of time, and often means that he has few or no restrictions on his behavior.
  • The bot doesn't always operate properly. I have personally had at least one free image (Image:Standing Liberty Quarter.png) tagged for deletion by it. Since his source code is not public, the community can't ensure these issues are fixed, and Betacommand is often uncommunicative in handling them.

I think that Betacommand should be required to release the source code to BetacommandBot, and the functions of the bot should be turned over to another user — or, preferably, to a group consisting of more than one person, thus providing additional coverage to handle the inevitable issues that will arise. *** Crotalus *** 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Allstarecho

Unfortunately, and opposite of what Betacommand has said above me, he doesn't address issues quickly. He remains mostly silent, and when he does speak it's foul-mouthed rants. His bot has been running tasks that it was never approved to do. Further, I've asked him on numerous occasions to please keep his bot off of my user pages, only to be met with rude replies. I, and others, just simply want his bot, BetacommandBot, to learn some manners by acknowleding the {{bots}}/{{nobots}} tags on userpages and respecting those tags. Once the bot has learned some manners, we can then work on Betacommand's own manners. Telling people "I don't have to do" this and that, and "that proposal will rot in hell" and "this is bullshit", etc. isn't the best way to not have people on your ass. Just simply run the bot for the tasks it was approved for - nothing more, nothing less, make the bot follow the bots/nobots tags on user pages and user talk pages, and Betacommand should read WP:CIVIL twice a day for a month. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 05:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Franamax

In response to FT2's request for specifics, here is what I see festering in the endless combative threads. NOTE that I do not claim any items below to be a fact. From my viewpoint, they are areas of concern which may need to be explored. This list also seems somewhat skewed against BC and does not reflect all the provocative actions against BC, certainly there have been questionable actions all round.

General

  • The need to comply with non-free image policy should be uncontroversial. What has caused problems is the method used to achieve the goal.
  • Supporters and opposers of BC have lined up on opposing sides and overwhelm any discussion thread with noise, such that desirable changes are not achieved. Incivility and rash actions seem to be escalating.
  • The role of BAG, 'crats and the community in overseeing bot tasks and disposition of complaints and suggestions seems unclear.

Details

  • BC seems unresponsive to suggestions on improving BCB to help with non-free compliance, as opposed to simply tagging for deletion based on an arbitrary set of bot rules.
  • BCB is impossible to block. BCB runs a bundle of tasks using non-public code. It is not clear whether the tasks can be separated. Individual blocks of BCB for improper actions are swiftly overturned because BCB is "mission-critical".
  • BC runs unauthorized tasks using BCB.
  • BC insufficiently defines whether requested BCB tasks have community consensus.
  • BC apparently refuses to repair BCB damage, in contravention of bot policy.
  • BC is deeply incivil.
  • BCB clone to address non-free images:
    • Improper language in bot approval request.
    • Policy violation allowing multiple operators of the same account.
    • Improper bot approval process - speedy approval without wait for community input, speedy closing, improper protection.
    • Undesirable naming of bot.
    • Perception of separate bot not owned by BC, when BC still completely controls the bot code.
  • Improper conduct:
    • Block of MMN by partial/involved admin. "Page ban" of MMN by same admin.
    • BC uses rollback against MMN in possible stalking/provocation.
    • Opponents of BC raise issues repeatedly in every forum available.
    • Supporters of BC dismiss all discussion as attacks on BC not worthy of consideration.
  • Lack of definition of bot task approval:
    • BAG approves on a technical basis only. No clear process by which the community decides whether that task itself should be handled by a bot.
    • Lack of clarity on the official process to register dissatisfaction with bot operation and get the operation improved - no process to do this other than "ask the botop".
    • General lack of community oversight of bots. Where do appeals go? When do operations get reviewed? etc.

ArbCom needs to decide if some of these issues are within their remit. Arbcom may have a further interest in ensuring that there is a structured and civil process by which the various issues may be resolved, without prejudice to any editors. Franamax (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarify here that BC=BetaCommand, BCB=BetaCommandBot, MMN=MickMacNee and I have specifically not provided any supporting diffs. I believe that the parties to this case will provide evidence in their own statements relevant to the points I have noted; to the extent that they collectively do not, AC should regard my statement as unreliable. My optimal outcome would be that every one of the points I've raised above will be generally agreed to be false, by all concerned. However, if the Committee wishes more specifics, I will undertake to provide them. Franamax (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Orderinchaos

I believe that Crotalus horridus's characterisation of the situation above, in its succinct form, is probably the most accurate summary of the issues which in my view ArbCom needs to consider. If we did not release our edits under the GFDL we would be in breach of all sorts of policies. However, this bot is effectively closed source, and there is no abiding security or other reason for it to be. Secondly, BetacommandBot's occasional rogue behaviour and performance of unauthorised tasks such as mass-deletion of redlink categories (claimed as "CfD work" although the categories had never been to CfD) and the Main Page fiasco, together with its owner's refusal to communicate in a civil and reasonable manner on many occasions, has resulted in a considerable loss of community faith in the bot's operations. An additional but minor point is the fact that only after considerable negotiations by a highly respected Wikipedian did BC finally offer to undo some of the recent damage. Humans can't keep up with bots, which can damage the encyclopaedia at a far greater rate than any human ever could - even with the best of intentions of their owners.

I also think Franamax immediately above has raised some valid concerns relating to the Bot Approvals Group, who recently undertook a very controversial operation in open defiance of consensus which has created a bot with a seemingly official name which, although operated by other users, essentially extends the reach of the problem. Furthermore, the hostility shown by some members of the group, and their apparent indifference to community disquiet on the issue (to the point of out-of-process protections and threats to block) are of great concern.

Essentially consensus and efficiency (for want of a better word) have gone head-to-head, and it seems that consensus, a core Wikipedia policy, has lost. It's not even a case of consensus failing - consensus was pretty much on target, but got steamrolled over by a dedicated group who really do appear to believe they are helping the encyclopaedia by doing so. We are losing editors because of this mess. The debate comes up almost every day at AN/I and refuses to go away, it's polarising the active community there into two opposite camps who are pretty much permanently incivil towards each other to the point where policy is regularly getting broken in their battles and attempts to control each other's communications on the subject, and I can only see it getting worse if ArbCom do not intervene. I disagree that the debate will "fall silent" in a couple of weeks, as the NFCC issue is only one of several major incidents related to this situation. Orderinchaos 09:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by HiDrNick

I've added User:ST47 as a party to this case, who protected Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot solely to stifle an ongoing discussion on-wiki in contravention of the protection policy and WP:OWN. I hope that in addition to the actions of Betacommand that the committee will examine the actions and practices of the Bot Approvals Group and the use of admin tools in this dispute.

diff. I reiterate that I hope the arbiters will accept this case.

[edit] Statement by Philippe

Regardless of the issues with BetacommandBot functionally, the community has shown an inability to resolve this on its own. In addition, there have been examples of shockingly bad judgement and incivility.

Maxim's "topic ban" of User:MickMacNee diverged greatly from established policy. What's worse, it was immediately followed by blocking him for an "unrelated" discussion. Maxim seems unable or unwilling to see the connection between these events. We have clear policies that uninvolved administrators should carry out all blocks.

In addition to this very tangental issue, it has become clear to me that Betacommand's civility issues can not be addressed by the community, because those who point them out are very often told, in effect, that because Betacommand does important work, we'll just have to deal with his civility issues.

The community should not be forced to accept incivility from someone simply because they do good work in other areas.

Finally, after multiple attempts to reform the Bot Approval Group, it appears that we're once again in a position where we need to consider that. It's become increasingly clear that the BAG does not, in fact, listen to community input on non-functional areas (policy, etc) of bot designs. I'm afraid that, all too often, all I can think of is "boys (or girls) and their toys" when dealing with the BAG.

The Arbcom should accept this case - if for no other reason than to review the decisions made by core parties to this case. - Philippe | Talk 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Phillippe, do you honestly think I don't see a connection between my topic ban and my block. The grounds on which I blocked seem to be valid, as Mr.Z-man reblocked later. I was involved, too much for many users' liking; it's not like I can get it right each time, can I? The topic ban was more of a cross between a block and IAR. Blocking a user for repeated disruption in a specific area is more punitive than telling the user in question to stay off a certain topic area. (ie I consider the ban a more preventative action than a block, but neither are made to be punitive) Maxim(talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't dispute that your block was valid, Maxim - frankly, I'd have probably issued it myself it had been posted to ANI. I just firmly believe you shouldn't have been the one to do it. That, in connection with a seriously questionable invocation of IAR, deserves to be looked at. - Philippe | Talk 21:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by John254

Betacommand has an extensive history of bot and script-assisted disruption -- please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Use_of_an_automated_tool_to_disrupt_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FUser_names, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Disruption_of_WP:AIV, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#High-speed_removal_of_external_links, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Inappropriate_link_removals, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#The_link_removal_was_conducted_inappropriately, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Unsatisfactory_communication_regarding_link_removals, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#History_of_poor_judgment. In December 2007, Betacommand inappropriately removed the edit links from thousands of stub templates using AutoWikiBrowser, then refused to reverse the disruption himself, as described in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Betacommand. I personally repaired most of the damage caused to the stub templates by individually reversing each edit with nothing but a rollback script, a task that continued for weeks -- see, for example, [10], [11], and [12]. More recently, Betacommand vandalized MickMacNee's talk page by programming BetacommandBot to post a large number of false notices alleging fair use violations in images that MickMacNee never uploaded, apparently in retaliation for MickMacNee's critiques of Betacommand's behavior -- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive_1#Edits_by_Betacommand_to_MickMacNee_talkpage. BetacommandBot was recently blocked indefinitely for running the unauthorized task of removing all red-linked categories from articles, which was considered to be disruptive since the categories removed might simply be mispellings of existing categories, as described in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Categories. However, Betacommand refused to reverse the edits himself, as required by Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot_accounts, until BetacommandBot was indefinitely blocked again to force compliance with the policy -- please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. Other unresolved issues with Betacommand's conduct include his chronic incivility, particularly his frequent use of crude scatological language in responding to concerns regarding his behavior -- see, for example, [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]. Moreover, it is apparent from the fact that the community has not reached a consensus to ban Betacommand, despite his egregious and protracted disruption, that the community cannot or will not resolve this issue itself, and that the matter necessarily requires consideration by the Arbitration Committee. I therefore urge that this case be accepted. Thank you. John254 19:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem apparent from a review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand is that many members of the community disagree with the method of fair use enforcement employed by BetacommandBot, and its successor, the Non-Free Content Compliance Bot. While the necessity of effectively enforcing the non-free content policy and guidelines is conceded, many editors question the efficacy of having a bot request the deletion of every fair use image which lacks text that purports to be a fair use rationale or the name of the article in which the image is used. I believe that high-quality fair use enforcement necessarily requires that human judgment be exercised through the manual review of each image. As this task would be far too large for any individual editor to perform, a bot could be employed for the limited purpose of dividing up images into manageable groups, and assigning them to volunteers. The review of an image would first involve a determination of whether the use of the image could be made acceptable pursuant to the non-free content policy and guidelines. If so, the reviewer would remedy any deficiencies on the image description page, by providing a fair use rationale, etc. If the image use could not be rendered acceptable, the reviewer would request the deletion of the image, even if its description page contained what purported to be a fair use rationale, and all other content necessary to prevent BetacommandBot from marking it for deletion. BetacommandBot's method of fair use enforcement is necessarily both overinclusive and underinclusive, because it marks legitimate fair use images for deletion on the basis of technical quibbling, while simultaneously failing to request the deletion of many unacceptable fair use images, simply because they contain a fair use template, the name of the article in which the image is used, and some text which purports to be a fair use rationale, which the bot is quite unable to comprehend, or evaluate on its merits. While the proper method of fair use enforcement would ordinarily be a question to be resolved by the community, when discussion of this issue has been stifled through the summary removal of blocks on BetacommandBot, which arguably does not enjoy the approval of the community for its continued operation, off-wiki discussion to secure the approval of a fair-use enforcement bot before a public request has even been filed, and the improper protection of a bot request for approval by one of the bot operators himself, then I assert that the intervention of the Arbitration Committee is required to restore conditions under which the community can effectively decide the best method of fair use enforcement without being thwarted by unilateralism. John254 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Gimmetrow

I recommend Arb not take this case. The community is dealing with the civility issues. Other issues about bot policy and the role of BAG are fuzzy to the community, but they are slowly getting addressed. I think it would be beneficial to keep that discussion going. Gimmetrow 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interjection: Analysis of above statements for reference, by FT2

Since the above statements covers a lot of ground, and several issues, I feel it is helpful to arbitrators and perhaps the community to analyze the issues and summarize them, as follows. The issues cited seem to fall into 3 broad groups, covering 9 areas. The listing in this manner should not be taken in any way as a comment on validity. It is merely a way to organize the many issues mentioned:
  • Betacommand issues:
  • 1. Betacommand's handling of communications with uploaders and critics is (per Bellwether) "chronically uncivil". This is described in many terms; ultimately they all come under one heading - "betacommand's personal communications and responses style".
  • 2. Against that Betacommand and the bot do a difficult job that attracts much vitriol, personal attack and misunderstanding from thwarted uploaders. Several people praise the bot for doing the allocated job without error, and the BFA page notes that Betacommand is "very responsive" to genuine bugs.
  • Bot issues:
  • 3. Bot code is closed. Concerns vary from philosophy ("it shouldnt be") to design, hidden bug, and maintenance worries.
  • 4. Bot used for novel (unapproved tasks).
  • 5. Bot does too much in one, is impossible to block, is not made simple for others to modify, has some problematic messages, could cease to be maintained.
  • Bot Approval Group issues:
  • 6. Approval process of bot was seen by some as "wrong" or "forced through". Opposing view: the bot was already approved; only the splitting of its means of operation (crudely: BAG members to operate, BC to maintain, new bot name, brief update of terms of operation for consistency) differs.
  • 7. BAG has made an unusual and perhaps controversial decision - allowing multiple operators, general bot handling is inadequate, allowed a perception BC does not manage the bot, etc (Franamax)
  • 8. Concerns that BAG does not listen to community input on non-functional aspects of bot design, such as policy. (As part of this, perhaps, ST47 is stated to have acted unhelpfully or excessively, or not adequately considered views presented.)
  • 9. Concerns whether there has been adequate communal discussion of related issues, such as non-free image handling.
FT2 (Talk | email) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by RogueNinja

So far, I have been completely and utterly uninvolved. I have uploaded no images to wikipedia, nor have I weighed in on the many discussions the community has had about BCBot.

What I see is:

  • BCBot's task is critical to wikipedia.
  • The images MUST be tagged, as per the wikipedia foundation
  • BCBot draws alot of complaints and criticism to betacommand.
  • Betacommand does not always (in fact, usually) reply to these complaints civilly.
  • I would be amazed if he did. It would take the patience and self-control of a monk to keep his WP:COOL with the amount of complaning he has to deal with
  • People often make absurd demands of betacommand, such as demanding that he release his code, or saying he should be writing image rationales instead of tagging them.
  • Yes, these are absurd demands.
  • BCBot's messages could use some work.
  • There is really no reason for the bot messages to be anything but the essence of kindess.

RogueNinjatalk 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Splash

It is repeatedly stated above that it's ok for Betacommand to be ruthlessly uncivil whenever someone complains to him because he gets so many complaints. That's untrue on its face. It is not ok to be rude and uncommunicative 'just in case' someone is winding you up or because the person before me was. The notion that 'established' or 'whatevered' users should be given leeway to do this (implicit even in FT2's statements) as a kind of 'thank you' is widely deprecated by the community, and should be given short shrift whenever it is implied.

The Bot Approvals Group would do well to remember that it found itself on a course to deletion not so long ago, and that red-hot-poker of a warning shot should not be overlooked. You are not a law unto yourselves; you must listen and be seen to be listening. Splash - tk 23:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A minor correction. You will find nowhere, that I have condoned uncivil conduct. Part of Arbitration is looking with more insight at an issue. The observation that a change may well render an entire issue moot, or a large but unknown portion, and that this may potentially happen almost before a case can get underway, is in my judgement, worth waiting for. Any sanction would be to protect the project from stress and friction going forward. A change that resolves this, would also address the matter. Whatever feelings may linger, we do not usually issue communal sanctions for matters that essentially are over and seemingly mostly resolved going forward (one main exception: gross breach of trust)... and if they are approaching that stage perhaps via communal actions already, then it is a common thing to wait until the matter becomes clear. You will find many arbitrator's views on many cases, that state "discussion or other steps in progress, wait until we see how it goes". This - however you might feel - is in fact one of them. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
With apologies, FT2, I perhaps imprecisely phrased. I was alluding to your sentence "betacommand's civility, which is almost entirely due to being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters", which divests BC of the blame for the content of the edit window when he presses save, in exchange for his bot work. I did not mean that your "await developments" part was implying "await further incivility". Splash - tk 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And my apologies too, I see the ambiguity in that, and would rephrase mine too. "betacommand's civility, which to a large extent arises in the context of being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters [and therefore if removed from that context which he is handling problematically, may well significantly diminish or come under control]." (diff). Apologies in turn for seeming to write a post that put the blame for his edits on others, and accept if willing, my correction, which I'll edit in. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
BC's chronic incivility has been tolerated and condoned for a long time. I'm quite sure he'll be "nice" during this case. Then he'll revert to the mean, and round and round we'll go. If you can look at the diffs provided across this case and conclude that his incivility is not a problem that needs dealt with now, well, I don't know what to say to you. Incivility litters BC's posts at every turn. Bellwether BC 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Locke Cole

Betacommand is frequently incivil, reacting poorly to legitimate concerns raised by editors (heck, his user talk page is a prime example of this, preemptively claiming some editors are only there to "whine and complain"). He is also unwilling to budge on matters that have consensus, for example, providing an automatic opt-out mechanism for his bots notifications. Despite a clear consensus forming at WP:AN/B#Community_proposal that his bot comply with {{bots}} (at least on User_talk pages), he has said he doesn't care what editors say as he won't implement the feature (he has a manual opt-out method that requires his intervention, but he has displayed an unwillingness to add anyone that asks, and is instead imposing his own judgment on other editors). Note also that he posted one of those comments from Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) (seems strange to post from a test account, it took me awhile to track down that diff). Aren't editors required to edit from one account?

I strongly urge the ArbCom to take up this matter, and strongly suggest they leave this open to expansion beyond just Betacommand and his actions (up to and including WP:BAG) as I believe the problem may go beyond just Betacommand. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Threaded discussion removed and added to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lucasbfr

My opinion is that BC is tired, and bitter, handling the burden of the task he is trying to achieve. The amount of people either asking legitimate concerns, not bothering to read the messages and complaining (some would say ranting), and/or trolling on his talk page is just unbelievable. I am not even talking the about 10 times (last time I counted) the bot was blocked for dubious reasons by administrators. The amount of stress this must cause results on his, well, inappropriate behavior (personally I would have left the project long ago under such circumstances, and probably locked the door of the asylum behind me).

That being said I have seen that BC and the BAG are now trying to address this issue by splitting NFC tagging on a separate bot, run by fresh people who could answer complaints with a cooler head. This should relieve BC from a part of his everyday hotline task, and would allow the community to address the other problems with BCBot more efficiently (eg., the non approved tasks). I don't think this RFArb is warranted at that time. Let the split be done, and see if things improve or not (I am still puzzled by the behavior of some people, as if they did want status quo in order to let things rot).

I am not saying BC's behaviour is OK, but it is understandable in such circumstances. Get in the middle of a lynching crowd that see you as the Antichrist and see if you don't get annoyed after almost a year. -- lucasbfr talk 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I did not list myself as a party, but I would be happy to oblige if need be.

[edit] Statement by x42bn6

There is a sad amount of petty bickering by both "sides" that sometimes descends to the childish level. One example is Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Recent MfD where User:MickMacNee and Betacommand 6RRed (was it 6? I can't remember) over whether or not to put a notice of a closed MfD debate on WP:AN/B. MickMacNee managed to avoid answering my questions altogether on why he thought the notice should stay up but Betacommand did not help at all by putting in crude comments such as, "its MickMacNee's pet attack page". He did, however, seem to stop after I told him he was not helping at all so I do think that he is fully unreasonable, just angry. But that is one example where Betacommand was hounded after due to civility issues. While there is no excuse for being uncivil, one has to remember that Betacommand has been a target of spite due to his work and I cannot imagine how he must feel - it seems that the whole world is against him (see his talk page archives) and that is a difficult thought.

I think there are concerns about whether or not Betacommand has sufficient temperament or patience to deal with proposals or criticism and I do believe he has because he deals with bug reports very well and although it seems difficult he can be responsive to questions such as his plans for his bots.

I must object to his code being released, however. The bot is part of Wikipedia, not the code, and it may not even be possible to release the code if Betacommand has reused parts of other peoples' code in it and that permission does not allow him to release it, for example.

That said, I feel Arbitration is slightly premature as I feel there is progress being made. I do hope, however, that several people within this issue would stand back and take a deep breath every once in a while. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Ned Scott

This seems to almost be more an issue about how the community develops impressions of some situations. There are some more direct and individual behavior interactions that could be looked at, but I think the major issue here is a general one. I think that, unfairly Betacommand has become a bad guy in many people's eyes, but I'm not sure an arbcom case can fix that. BCB has had so many different tasks that people are likely to group unrelated concerns, and make judgments based on that as well. The recent idea to put some of BCB's task to a bot ran by more than one editor seems to be a good way to avoid some of the misconceptions people had when they only had one user to focus on.

So while there are specific issues being raised here, I think they basically stem from this general misconception that some of the community has, and that should be considered. I hope we can find a way to overcome that misconception, and if arbcom thinks it can help, then that would be great. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lar

Wow, lots of opinions. I just popped in to say a few things:

  1. that I do in fact have a snapshot (point in time) copy of the code used to do image tagging, but not the code used for other things. I can answer questions about it as needed but it is not to be released to others without Betacommand's express permission. He has indicated to me he has taken other measures to safeguard/archive the code in case he's hit by a bus/truck/lorry...
  2. that BCBot does a job that badly needs doing in this area, no other bot has stepped up to do, and that we are under time pressure to get done...
  3. and that in my view, despite all the uproar, progress on process improvement is being made. I'm not sure an ArbCom case is needed, although if all parties took on board what all the other parties were saying perhaps there would be more common ground than there currently is.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 06:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by AKAF

I think that it is important that the Arbcom take this case because the community has lost confidence in the BAG. Betacommand is the operator of an especially active bot account, but is otherwise not interesting except as an example. I do not address the civility problems of Betacommand or the applicability of the Betacommandbot task 4 to NFCC10c. I would encourage the Arbcom to take this case to examine two areas of interest:

  1. The role of the BAG and the level of care which is taken in approving bot actions
  2. The responsibilities of bot operators

What is Betacommandbot? User:Betacommandbot is an account on which a collection of wildly varying and unrelated scripts are run by user User:Betacommand. These include at least 11 approved tasks: 1a-d, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; which range from placing article assessment templates, spam lists, moving images from Wikipedia to commons and NFCC10c compliance checking. Due to the wide variety of tasks which are approved for this bot, it is very difficult for a user to tell whether an action by Betacommandbot is unapproved, or merely an unexpected extension of an approved task. I'll not waste your time at this point with diffs, but suffice to say that despite the breadth of its approved tasks, Betacommandbot is regularly caught running unapproved tasks. In addition, Betacommandbot is regularly caught modifying thousands of pages in a fashion which its operator later attributes to a bug. The number of "unexpected edits" which Betacommandbot generates in this way is at least in the tens of thousands.

Despite the large amount of undeniably good work which has been performed by Betacommandbot, the complete codebase of Betacommandbot is in constant major flux. It is the combination of this code flux and the rather lax attitude of the BAG to Betacommandbot's tasks which, in my opinion, is responsible for the root of the community's problems with Betacommandbot. I think that Betacommand's refusal to provide the source to Betacommandbot (except for the single task (of 11 approved) noted by Lar above), is rooted in the fact that "Betacommandbot" mostly consists of throw-away simple scripts which remain untested and probably mostly no longer exist. Betacommand's insistence to the contrary, it seems unlikely that such disparate tasks actually require a monolithic code.

What I would like to see from this RFAr:

  1. A statement from Arbcom about the role of the BAG.
  2. A statement from Arbcom about the definition of a single bot.
  3. A statement from Arbcom as to the appropriate action for the BAG in the case that a bot operator is plagued by bugs and/or changing bot definitions.

I think that this is necessary since the BAG does not currently appear to concern itself with anything except the technical feasibility of "proof of principle" bots. The BAG has, as far as I can tell, been completely inactive with respect to the various complaints about Betacommandbot. AKAF (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Stifle

I would urge acceptance (with regret) because recent bouts of incivility by Betacommand go well beyond the justification or excuse that the bot is providing a valuable service. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Arthur Rubin

I see several problems with Betacommand and Betacommandbot....

  1. Betacommand has been unCIVIL. I admit there's provocation, but any other editor, even Jimbo, would be blocked for such activity.
  2. Betacommandbot has been performing unauthorized actions. (There's no question about that. Because the bot has been authorized to do so many different things, it's sometimes unclear which actions are unauthorized, but using a bot to intentionally spam a user's talk page was clearly not approved by the BAG.)
  3. Betacommand doesn't provide documentation as to what he thinks the bot does, so it's difficult to tell whether an action not covered by the bot justification is intentional.
  4. When the bot does something clearly wrong, he doesn't fix it until after Betacommandbot is blocked. (BrownHairedGirl's most recent action makes that clear. Betacommand was blocked for emptying categories without CFD authorization. He did stop shortly (1-1/2 minutes) before being blocked, but never said that he wouldn't run that function of the bot again, until after BHG blocked him, after which he finally started reverting that run of the function. No one, except possibly Betacommand, knows how many times that unauthorized function was done.

This is not a content dispute, but a dispute as to whether Betacommand should be banned (or some lesser remedy) for incivility, and as to how the bot should be restricted to follow the authorized functions.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kaypoh

There is a huge mess with many problems. Betacommand will not fix his bot and the community cannot deal with this. ArbCom, please accept and clarify what is "conduct issue" that you will look into and what is "content issue" that you will not look into.

Newyorkbrad, you say "contributors who have dedicated volunteer time to locating and uploading an image to accompany an article are often frustrated or offended to receive a notice that they have violated our intellectual-property policy or, worse, when their images are deleted". Because it looks like it is OK for Betacommand and other people who tag/delete images to violate WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and other policies. Yes, image work is important, but Betacommand is doing it the wrong way and violates so many policies.

--Kaypoh (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lawrence Cohen

I like Beta a lot since he tends to say it like it is, but the growing disconnects and nastiness here, and the apparent belief that bot operators don't answer to wider community consensus, and only to the obscure BAG need clarifying. The BAG, or any one user, bot operator of the highest value or not, answers to the community. That's just how we do things. At the least the committee should accept so that these specific questions on policy and consensus between the community, bot operators, and the "BAG" can be settled. Lawrence § t/e 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dihydrogen Monoxide

Guy said it. Solve the bigger issues of how nonfree content is handled, and a lot of this will become meaningless. After 23 March, this should be a lot easier, and until then I advise all parties to chill. Hopefully the Arbs will too. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Statement by Superslash

The issue of how nonfree content is handled is beyond both my scopes of interest and knowledge. What drew me into this was that this entire issue is, imho, being handled in a very un-wikilike manner. The betacommandbot by it's very nature assumes bad faith and acts destructively where any number of effortless tweaks would have it compliant with Assume Good Faith and acting constructively. Despite my best efforts at avoiding wikipolitics I feel compelled to contribute that the mere act of pointing out that betacommand's hostility was innapropriate (in those words no less) netted me a visit from one of his vocal supports who posted on my talkpage pretending to be an admin warning me off of attacking other users and insulting me in the process. Whether or not the bot is technically following the rules and regulations is beside the point when you consider that it is possible for people doing the right thing to still be wrong because they did a good thing in a bad way. Superslash (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems I won't be getting away from this unscathed. ST47 has found me worth continually insulting, and given how he continually (and vocally) insists that I am attacking people and now that I am supposedly claiming that I am above the policies I think if I were to turn my back on the keyboard for any significant length of time without some manner of insurance he would have set me up for a ban or administrative punishment of some sort with some of his falsified claims. If he does drag me into this somehow and I'm unresponsive I hope someone will notice this and look through the histories to make sure he hasn't altered anything I've said. This may seem somewhat unconventional but going on past behavior I think it's a valid concern. Superslash (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And on further discussion ST47 (who it turns out really IS an admin) continues to insist on the reality of some twisted fantasy version of events where I'm insulting betacommand and proclaiming myself to be above the rules. It may not seem it but I find this very relevant to the case at hand considering that he is both an admin and one of the biggest supporters of betacommand and his bot. If an admin and staunch supporter issues warnings for "disruptive behavior" to people for saying that someone's hostile behavior is innapropriate while at the same time justifying vandalism and calling someone a dumbass or worse as "brushing against" the civility policy then there is some serious unkosher behavior going on here and it makes me question whether this arbitration will be handled fairly or not. Imho the core issue here isn't the bot itself but the wholesale violation of what I want to kick myself for calling the wiki way. Uncivil behavior, closed code, and bad faith actions all being defended by administrators does not a healthy wikipedia make. I really think this is more about the way the big players have been conducting themselves than anything else, and I don't think that either side is going to feel satisfied with any decision that doesn't at least in part address that.Superslash (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding parties to the case

It should be noticed that the actions of administrators User:Arthur Rubin and User:Coren are being discussed on the Evidence page. To date they have been mentioned here, here and here. They were also mentioned towards the end of the request for arbitration - see here. Could arbitrators and clerks note here whether these two administrators should be added to the case? At the least, someone should notify them. Carcharoth (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently consulting with arbitrators about whether I can, as clerk and/or as a regular user, accept your proposal and add the parties myself, or whether it requires a motion. The general procedure is unclear on this count, although I think we last agreed that parties can be added post-open without a motion only by themselves, whereas someone else wanting to list them as a party requires a motion. I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to add any individuals whose actions are mentioned in the evidence or workshop as parties to the case. Kirill 03:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added Coren and Arthur Rubin to the list of parties and moved statements accordingly. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Parties can add themselves if they feel they are involved, but I think they should be added by others' request with caution only, if the aim is that ArbCom is to investigate their activities. That's because in many cases every user could have 2 or 3 people they wish to add, and this prosepective forest of back-and-forth additions would distract from the core of the case. Perhaps there should be some kind of requirement to show that there's significant evidence that it's reasonable to add them as a party? Thoughts welcomed? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts are as follows:
a) any user can add themselvesto the list of parties, as long as there is some semblance of involvement and doing so isn't done to make a point etc.
b) any user can contact any non-recused clerk and, if they can demonstrate the user is obviously significant to the case (per /Evidence and /Workshop), the clerk can add them to the list of parties. The non-recused clerk will take into account the nature of the request and any previous discussion on the issue. Other clerks and arbitrators may be informally and unofficially consulted as sanity checks.
c) otherwise, a motion can be proposed using the normal procedure, where it isn't obviously significant or a non-recused clerk declines to add the user to the list of parties.
The important part about this idea is the differing standards of involvement between b) and c), correlating to the general role of arbitrators as a whole and clerks. Although this may seem a little bit like instruction creep, it's the best idea I have to prevent gaming and bad-faithed behaviour (and keeping the party list in hand) while allowing relatively uncontroversial party list additions quickly. Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that in this case I linked to evidence sections that, I hope, did demonstrate that the two users were obviously significant to the case. In large cases, of course, this could get out of control, as a lot of people could be obviously significant if lots of evidence is presented. The most important thing, in my mind, is notification. User:Coren in particular, needed to be told that severe criticism was being made of him. Carcharoth (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the problem with what I did before. The rule always used to be that no-one could add anyone else to a case without a motion, and I can certainly see Coren's argument to be left off the party list. However, I really have no authority to be making a controversial and judgement decision like this, nor does any other clerk or any other user; really, only the Committee as a whole via a motion should. My above proposal was a middle-ground sort of arrangement between the old style and Kirill's comment above. With all due respect, I think the old way was better. Respectfully, Daniel (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just notifying Coren would have been fine. Sorry if this ends up messy. Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all - our confusion is hardly your fault. I've reverted my edits to restore the status quo until this is all sorted out; the point of giving a courtesy note is indeed a good one, although it's now (obviously) moot per below. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that the incident with the block is entirely unrelated to the case, and while criticism is forthcoming, discussion should take place in an RfC if anyone feels it warranted. My understanding is that it pretty much sums up to "don't have done that" at this point, and has fallen pretty much dead for lack of anything dramatic since. — Coren (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Coren, I've left a note on your talk page. I do consider the incident related, but that may be best left up to the arbitrators at this point. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Being a party to a case isn't anything special; having parties is mainly a method for ensuring that people who may be the subject of remedies in a case are informed that their behaviour is under consideration (hence the requirement at RFAR to notify people named as parties), and for allowing them an opportunity to contribute evidence or workshop proposals. Just because someone is named as a party doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be subject to remedies, and just because someone isn't named, that doesn't mean we won't consider their behaviour should the case move in that direction. Case scope is regularly dictated by developments after the case is accepted. (I wince a little whenever people describe themselves as "uninvolved" or "non-parties" or similar at RFAR: we consider any relevant behaviour, and it doesn't really matter how people are described.)
Ultimately it's about informing people what's going on, so if you think someone's behaviour ought to be considered in the case, let us know (via the evidence page, the workshop or elsewhere) and let them know so they have a chance to respond, don't worry too much about classifying people. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some talk page threads from WT:RFARB

These threads are currently at WT:RFARB.

The threads will probably end up in archive 21 or 22, if anyone wants to update the links as that happens. Carcharoth (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be wise to move them here (leaving links to their new location here), perhaps reorganizing this page with first level headers of "Statements", "Old Discussion", and finally these current discussions under "Discussion". Would certainly keep the history tidier if it was all here instead of spread out in archives. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to note that the first two were not copied. I can see why (one was before the request was filed, the other was threaded discussion mostly linked to already from the relevant statment), but just noting it here in case anyone questions it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

Gp75motorsports (talk · contribs) made the original change of other person's comments, I reverted. Bellwether BC then reverted thinking that I made the original change, and I reverted back. --Maxim(talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates why your revert was correct. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. Bellwether BC 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand RFAR: Extremely Disappointing

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm mystified at the posture assumed by 6 members of the committee. Three have opposed the request "for now", basically based on Bainer's short oppose. And another three are in some strange "limbo" whereby they're hoping the "community" can work this out, when it's the community's failure to do so--well, really, it's more BC's refusal to work with the community on several issues--that brought us to Arbcom. He's stated explicitly that he categorically rejects an RfC, letting us all know that if we wanted him to participate, we'd have to "take it to arbcom." That there are six arbiters that are insisting that we try further measures with a user that's clearly indicated that those measures will be fruitless is beyond me. Bellwether BC 12:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if someone says that they'll reject an rfc, you have to take it to rfc first anyway. Cla68 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If they've already said they will not participate, and that the only group they'll listen to is the Arbcom, no thanks. I don't enjoy wasting my time. If Arbcom won't deal with the issue, then I'll just leave others to figure out a solution to the problem. I'm finished with it. Bellwether BC 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The last I checked the major phase of tagging was drawing to a close, discussions were underway about other people assuming some of the bot tasks, and there are a number of active discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand. Is this not the case? Should we not allow these efforts to run their course? --bainer (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you read any of those discussions, and the many many previously archived, and the courtesy blanked NFCC page? It is precisely because of the way those discussions 'run their course' is why this case was brought, and as for the new bot, I have already outlined here and elsewhere why that is an avoidance and excusal of the root issues, and have been pointedly banned for my troubles. Even that measure has raised serious concerns over the BAG process due to betacommands 'input', and merely served to further highlight betacommands serious issues as a bot operator/coder. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. I wonder though, are you simply laying aside the blatant and chronic incivility laid out in the many diffs provided, as well as the misuse of his bot for vandalizing a usertalk pages, and for unapproved work? I've seen editors put on "civility patrol" for far less egregious examples of personal attacks. The community has tried to deal with BC's civility (and other) issues. We've failed, particularly on the civility side, which is what brings us here. Bellwether BC 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As detailed in my additional statement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Additional_statement_by_MBisanz, there has been little if any development in the community "making progress on its own here" and Betacommand still actively defends using his bot in a disruptive manner OUTSIDE of the image tagging issue. MBisanz talk 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the problems is that BetacommandBot's edits are difficult to analyse due to the sheer number. I've asked for a list of all category-related edits by the bot so that they can be reviewed. If this is not possible, there are scrutiny and transparency issues here. Putting a lot of different tasks into one bot and running them at various unannounced and unscheduled times, makes scrutiny on any single task very difficult (this is a general problem with multi-task bots). Failing community discussions on all this, what would be the next step? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BAG discussions I've started are:

I hope that arbitrators will not assume that starting the discussions alone will resolve anything, and that they will watch the discussions as they develop. Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further evidence of ongoing problems

I present this current (minutes old) diff, in which BC claims that intentionally spamming MMN's talkpage was nothing more than a "minor WP:POINT violation", and refuses to see how it was a complete misuse of his bot, and a very real problem for a high-profile bot operator, and member of the BAG. Bellwether BC 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I very much appreciated the "you cant call sending MMN 50 image notices an attack" opener, as must the people who had to clean up after him him. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)This would look much better as an add'l statement including a reference to WP:BOT or WP:VANDAL. And yes, I agree is evidence that 1 this community discussion is going nowhere and that Betacommand's attitude in non-NFCC matters has not changed. MBisanz talk 15:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Feel free to add it in MB. I think I'm about done here, if there's no further interest from the arbcom in actually dealing with this problem. Bellwether BC 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'll add it later today. I'm getting the feeling that Arbcom's strongly hinting it wants a failed user-conduct RfC before it will intervene... MBisanz talk 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So they want us to waste more community time before they will act? Great. Actually, I'm getting the distinct sense that the deck is stacked against us here (see FT2's attacking of MMN on the mainpage), and that BC knew that before he said that filing an RfC against him was pointless and to take it directly to arbcom. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that's my gut feeling right now. Bellwether BC 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm following this matter carefully and will state that I am not, in the least, impressed by the idea of placing unwarranted notices on a user's talkpage in retaliation for his commenting on a dispute, nor by any attempt to justify such behavior or do anything other than apologize for it. The request for arbitration remains under review so far as I am concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

One point if I may. You have mentioned in the past that requests stay up for 10 days. Could you point to where this is documented? In this particular case, would it be possible to suspend the request until after the relevant deadlines have passed? In this case the deadlines are 23 March 2008 and also, in some quarters, 1 April 2007 (because it is 7 days after the other deadline, or because of some clarification from WMF - I haven't found out which yet). In other words, if the request is declined, it should be without prejudice to refiling, or a motion could be made to suspend the request until the first week of April. In the days leading up to Maxim filing the request, several people (including me) stated that they would not file a case until after the deadline. I am concerned that the actual filing by Maxim may have been a pre-emptive request. Obviously I have no way to show that, and I will assume good faith, but I would not like to see the timing of a request obscure the issues. This is why I was waiting until after 23 March, because I support the non-free image work and wanted any case to be (relatively) free of the complex issues surrounding that and free of the background noise of "important job to be done"/"deadline to meet", which I mentioned in my statement was confusing the issue. I see that FT2 is actually adding to that background noise during this request, repeating red herrings about non-free content policy and wide community acceptance, which is worrying. I know there is a lot of material to read - I may write a history of it eventually - but when arbitrators start selectively quoting, it is concerning. I will point out one thing to FT2 on that page and then leave it. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I definitely concur with Carch's analysis above, but especially with his concerns about the timing of Maxim's request (I'm not nearly so generous as he is about motives, but that's beside the point), and FT2's current contributions to the RFAR page. Bellwether BC 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement that non-accepted cases are generally removed from the Requests for arbitration pages after 10 days currently appears at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#How requests are processed and the decision to accept. It actually took me a few moments to find just now, so I'm not at all surprised that you couldn't quickly located it—I believe that the 10-day rule used to appear right at the top of WP:RfAr, and it looks like FT2 moved it to the "Arbitration guide" page as part of reorganizing the material several weeks ago. Interestingly, though, the 10-day rule is not to be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. It might be desirable to make the pages more consistent. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And my question about request suspension or refiling? Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked that the request be kept on WP:RfAr past the 10 days given the number of "hold" votes by arbitrators, even before I saw your post. Another arbitrator voted to accept the case today, and I am keeping a close eye on the situation. I also agree that if this request is declined it would be without prejudice to renewing if the situation does not substantially improved. For my part, when I take the time to write a peroration such as I did in lieu of an immediate vote on this request, my hope and expectation is that it will have a significant impact on the person(s) I am addressing. I am sure FT2 and other arbitrators feel the same way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That does seem to make things a bit clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more evidence of ongoing civility issues

When an attempt to work out BC's refusal to acknowledge the NoBots template with his bot, he replied with this gem, among others I could have picked from. Bellwether BC 04:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One clarifier I could perhaps help with. "On hold" is not usually shorthand for "dismiss if we can". It's actually more usually "Bordering on accept, watching carefully, and may well accept if this last ditch communal approach (or whatever it may be) goes nowhere, unless the situation visibly starts to become resolved".
I think I'd like to clarify that, if it'd help at all, as a few people might not be aware of it. In fact, this one's a pretty classic "on hold" case, so far as such a thing exists. They happen from time to time, usually when arbitration is sought when it's not quite "last resort", but the issues are real and it is borderlining it - and imminently so if current matters don't diminish the problem soon. Maybe one lesson of all this is, some folks don't understand how Arbitration works. It's by and large very effective (not perfect, but by and large), but even experienced users seem to lack an understanding of some aspects of how it operates, namely, the "way of thinking" that goes into a case. I've been presenting or (as of last year) helping on arb cases since 2004, so it's always been in the "kinda obvious" class so to speak. It might not be obvious for all. Would a short note on that aspect be useful on the arbitration guide page? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
FT2, I'm not sure, where you talk about adding to the arbitration guide page, are you talking about ways to "stay out of court", recognizing when you're on the edge and needing to look elsewhere before going nuclear, avoiding the massive effort that goes into an arb case which pretty much never delivers satisfactory results for any single party, because arbitration is about resolution, not victory? If that's what you mean, add away, better yet, add an essay too. Alternatively, I'm missing your meaning altogether, in which case ignore this indent :) Franamax (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You've been presented with numerous examples of ongoing issues, unable to be resolved "by the community." At what point does it go "off hold" and into arbitration? Personally, I think BC has little fear of an arbcom case, as he seemed almost flippant when the idea of an RfC was raised a few weeks ago, saying "no thanks, take it straight to arbcom" or something to that effect. Initially, I argued for waiting until after 23 March. Then Maxim did a preemptive strike request, and forced the hand of those of us who have serious concerns with BC. I think the case is becoming more and more clear-cut with every incivil post BC makes. Bellwether BC 06:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But the Arbs give themselves 10 days to begin with, and NYB has indicated that could be extended. I think they may be attempting to be conservative in this matter and wait until its very clearcut they need to step in. Also, I don't know the religious persuasions of the Arbs, but we are hitting Easter week, and given the long time Highways 2 was open without activity and how that made it more difficult to resolve, they may want decide on this case without such an interruption. MBisanz talk 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Easter's not relevant, I don't think. (Highways 2 was basically, under an injunction that solved much of the immediate warring, and got pushed back for the few very major cases and private matters that came pretty much back to back solidly in January/February.) Civility is highly relevant and I think most people know that. Again, no need to look for conspiracies that aren't there. We often look at cases with a balance that parties may not have, and it's often a concern of parties what to read into it. We have a norm, and that norm can sometimes take a less "nuclear" option, and sometimes a much tougher line, than various parties would see as "their view". Often we watch a while, when to those involved it's very obvious that something must be done "this moment"; more review of this kind can help shape good decisions. We're also quite adept at declining cases that have insufficient grounds, if desired, and not shy to do so. If you track prior cases you'll find we explain why, when we do. When we do act, it's for the community, and it takes away a dispute from the community. We don't do that lightly, and if the community is even possibly showing it may be able to handle it, then there are very few matters where we would not allow that chance, until it is clear there is a need to deal with it at Arbitration.
The flip side of that is, when a case does go to Arbitration, it goes there to be solved. A few cases that doesn't happen. The great majority, no matter how bad they were at communal level, how devastating to editors and content, are resolved. Some, we accept back a second time or more, to refine, review, or follow up. Its not the norm; usually a second case is completely different or much has moved on (example: 'Highways 2' is almost completely unrelated to 'Highways'). This can be unknown sometimes, to users who are heated and see mostly one or few sides, or are unfamiliar with how Arbitration works in its role as a dispute resolution process, and the checks and balances within it. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I was implying that some of you Arbs might have real lives and maybe didn't want to accept a case if you knew you'd be traveling away from a computer over Easter week. MBisanz talk 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, public holidays wouldn't affect acceptance. For one thing, accept/decline/whatever just doesn't depend upon public holidays (or if it did people would say "wait till X is over"), for another once accepted people would be posting evidence for a while anyway, and many would do so public holiday or not. Wikipedia dispute handling is a 24/7/365 matter at most levels, so to speak, open all hours. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully question this, don't you mean 24/7/366? :) Franamax (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And again: after discussion at the MfD, even many of the "keeps" were saying the last sentence on his opt-out should be removed. I removed it. For that, I was called a vandal, and summarily reverted. In checking the history of that page, he has reverted other similar removals of that disputed text with the same kind of personal attack. Bellwether BC 02:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: BC has requested speedy deletion of the page, which causes the above diff to be broken. In it, he calls me a "vandal" and restores hotly disputed text, that was objected to by a clear consensus at the MfD. Bellwether BC 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand vs Abu badali comment

A narrow issue I would like to comment on is NYB's comparison of Beta with Abu. There are notable differences. The major grudge with Abu was his stalking after the contributors and his selection of his victims being based not on the history of copyvio's but simply on disagreeing with Abu badali. You never meet him, make a comment somehow critical of him or even simply disagree with his opinion, and he goes after all your images tagging for deletion as many as he can. It was plain obvious that the intent of such activity was to cause grief to a particular editor as if one is concerned about image policies, one chooses victims for a thorough check based on other things, with the history of copyvio uploads being first on the list. At the same time, Abu badali was much more talkative, that is he reasoned for his POV, even though the latter was often without merit as well as his reasoning. While discussing, he clearly attempted to cause editors more grief by engaging in trickery, baiting and role playing. This is not the problem of Betacommand. I have not seen him engaged into such wide-scale stalking. Unlike Abu, Beta suffers from uncommunicativeness, rashness, lack of respect to the community and short temper that brings occasional outbursts. Opinions may differ as to what is "worse" so to speak (for the project), but if in the case of Abu, there is more doubt about good faith (in addition to poor judgment) in the case of Beta poor judgment and disregard of policies and consensus come first and the rest comes second. --Irpen 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for ArbCom re: BetaCommand RfAR

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Daniel (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When I made a statement in this request (back when I was happily uninvolved), I tried to present a simple list of issues. FT2 also made an interjection to group and itemize the relevant issues. Additional issues have since arisen and this case seems headed for acceptance.

My questions:

  • Is it possible for AC to enable the creation of a summary list with a comprehensive set of topic groups and details?
  • Can AC then indicate which items would be under consideration and which would be beyond the committee's mandate?
  • Can AC direct that certain items be considered separately:
    • To determine whether they have already been resolved by consensus.
    • To be considered, perhaps as a series of mini-RFC's, in an attempt to reach consensus.
    • To be referred to appropriate exising policy groups for consideration and comment.
  • Can AC defer the main case until these separate items have been addressed and either resolved, or failed consensus is apparent? Perhaps a two-week timeframe, with appropriate cautions on behaviour until that time.

The benefits of this approach are to simplify the actual AC case as much as possible; to allow consideration of the various issues on their own merits, rather than as intertwined threads, with maximum community input; and to allow a short breathing-space where everyone can step back and focus on solving problems rather than escalating conflict. Given the level of feelings and entrenched positions, this would likely require AC oversight to be successful. I have no idea whether this is within AC's remit, but I do think it worth asking. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of approach would be helpful, but please remember to refer to this as the BetacommandBot RfArb. This is not just about Betacommand or his bot, but about all those active in the issues surounding his bot. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, it has since been opened as "Betacommand 2". Oh well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of me (User:Arthur Rubin) and User:Coren

Much I would like to keep out of this, I think my actions and Coren's are relevant may be relevant to the case. My deletion of Beta's opt-out was taken to prevent what I considered to be a violation of the core principles of Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", by beta and the signatories. Coren blocked me (in an action generally agreed to be improper, even if the one of the reasons it was considered improper was edited into the blocking guidelines without consensus or comment), but the question of whether my actions were proper may be suitable for this RfAr. However, my time on Wikipedia is limited, and I'm named as an involved party in another (proposed) RfAr and am actively monitoring a mediation case (although not named), so I'd like to know whether I'm considered a party in deciding whether to make a further statement as well as possibly presenting evidence. As some of the evidence presented only relates to my actions and Coren's actions, if those are subject to review, I might like to prepare more evidence related to those actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the bainer's comment above answers this. I think what should happen is that you and Coren should be notified if anything concerning you two gets to the proposed decision stage, or gets discussed at length. I too would like to see a wider discussion on these issues, including whether informal gag rules ("gag rules are typically defended on the ground that they help preserve consensus by placing potentially divisive controversies "off the table" of debate") are a good thing for Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I already asked ArbCom two times.

Please clarify what is "conduct issue" that you will look into and what is "content issue" that you will not look into. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)