Toshio Yamaguchi (talk | contribs) →A queue is forming...: reply to CBM |
|||
Line 421: | Line 421: | ||
:::::::::*''"...then you argue it is OK that he has routinely flouted the speed restriction"'' |
:::::::::*''"...then you argue it is OK that he has routinely flouted the speed restriction"'' |
||
::::::::::Any evidence for this other than the evidence by 69.149.249.38? The discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence#Replies by Toshio Yamaguchi regarding evidence presented by 69.149.249.38]] shows that there is no uniform interpretation of the restriction text by the community. [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
::::::::::Any evidence for this other than the evidence by 69.149.249.38? The discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence#Replies by Toshio Yamaguchi regarding evidence presented by 69.149.249.38]] shows that there is no uniform interpretation of the restriction text by the community. [[User:Toshio Yamaguchi|Toshio Yamaguchi]] ([[User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi|talk]]) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Any time Δ makes 41 or more edits in a 10 minute period, he has averaged more than 4 edits per minute over a 10 minute period of time. It is easy to create a list of 10-minute periods in which Δ made more than 40 edits, because this just requires scanning all his edits and counting how many occur in each 10 minute period. — Carl <small>([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]])</small> 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:44, 24 January 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Is there going to be any movement on this
Excuse me for being blunt, but the proposed decision date has already passed, and there hasn't been any movement at all on the proposed decision page. Now I know that most of your discussion takes place where no one can see it, but I worry that this case might not get closed out by the time that the ArbCom changeover takes place, and that this is percisely the kind of mess that shouldn't be handled over the course of two terms.
Finally, while I'm not accusing anyone of doing this, if action on this is being delayed because it might affect the ongoing elections, I'd like to say that such behavior would be extremely inappropriate. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Elen and I are not running this year (we're both on the first year of our terms), so that's not it. We've both been in contact with Kirill during this case. The last time we talked he had a few more questions for the parties he was working on to clarify some areas where we weren't sure whether to address certain behaviors in the decision or not in the decision. However, I don't think it will be too much longer until you see some Arbitrator proposals in the workshop, and then a proposed decision shortly afterwards. I apologize that we didn't hit our proposed date (and that we didn't change it sooner to reflect this fact), but to mangle a certain comedy bit, while we're not there yet, it's just a little bit further. SirFozzie (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I haven't been sitting still on this - I've had sciatica, so I can't actually sit still anyway. If Kiril has finished, we intend to workshop the pd onwiki as far as possible, so people will see what's going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The cynic in me, as mentioned above, thought that ArbCom was deliberately dragging its heels on this in order to not influence the election. Now that the election is over, are we going to start to see some action on this? Soon? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I haven't been sitting still on this - I've had sciatica, so I can't actually sit still anyway. If Kiril has finished, we intend to workshop the pd onwiki as far as possible, so people will see what's going on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Elen and I are not running this year (we're both on the first year of our terms), so that's not it. We've both been in contact with Kirill during this case. The last time we talked he had a few more questions for the parties he was working on to clarify some areas where we weren't sure whether to address certain behaviors in the decision or not in the decision. However, I don't think it will be too much longer until you see some Arbitrator proposals in the workshop, and then a proposed decision shortly afterwards. I apologize that we didn't hit our proposed date (and that we didn't change it sooner to reflect this fact), but to mangle a certain comedy bit, while we're not there yet, it's just a little bit further. SirFozzie (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"For this case, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 8 support votes are a majority."
According to "Majority reference" table: 1–2 (Abstentions) result in 7 (Support votes needed for majority) Bulwersator (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Slight misread there. There are 14 active arbs (so 8 is a majority) and 2 inactive arbs (total of 16) SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. What is meant is that there are 16 arbs in total, of which 2 inactive and 14 active. To get the majority calculation (14/2)+1=8. After that, if there are any abstentions amongst the active arbs on any elements, that gets factored in on those items. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Slight misread there. There are 14 active arbs (so 8 is a majority) and 2 inactive arbs (total of 16) SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Community sanctions confirmed although they failed?
I think there's a bit of cognitive dissonance in holding those positions simultaneously. I think it's fine to say that the sanctions were grounded in real concerns, but on the other hand the whole pattern identification business turned out impractical when participants in the drama couldn't agree that a script-generated sequence of edits was a pattern. The restrictions while well-meaning didn't work as intended. So, it makes little sense for ArbCom to confirm or "take[s] possession" of them as-is. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Kirill's principles on the Workshop page led that barring external factors, the community decision on sanctions for individual editors generally holds sway, and that barring cases of (let's say) manifest injustice, ArbCom will generally respect the indication of the community. If the specific sanctions aren't working, then one course would be for ArbCom to take direct ownership of them and implement an AE regime; alternatively they can recognize the existing sanctions and also impose more restrictive conditions. Or I suppose they could substitute a restrictive sanction similar in intent and severity but different in terms, but I've not seen that yet in the PD. Franamax (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Proposed_decision#Betacommand_restricted appears similar in intent to the community ones. Given the number of administrators involved in the previous disagreement over what is a pattern, I doubt that moving the discussion to WP:AE will make any difference in outcomes unless the restrictions are much more straightforward to interpret. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternative remedy suggestion
Picking up on the comment by Courcelles, one possible alternative remedy would be to ban Betacommand from everything except running automated tasks via a flagged bot account approved by the Bot Approvals Group. He would be permitted to edit from his main account only on talk pages or noticeboards and only to discuss his bot operations (with an exception for his or his bots' userspace). Any other edits would have to come through his bots, and must be approved tasks. This would allow, for example, User:Δbot to continue clerking the SPI venue (I've heard no complaints as to his operations there). –xenotalk 13:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- What usually happens to the bot account of a banned user? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know, alternate accounts of banned users are typically blocked to enforce the ban (bot accounts being a subset). Even if they were not, a user who was banned could not reasonably continue operating a bot because they need to be able to respond to queries about their bot operations. –xenotalk 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- They could respond elsewhere than on-wiki (a separate wiki, email, blog, forum, website for starters). They might be allowed to edit their own talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- They could respond elsewhere than on-wiki (a separate wiki, email, blog, forum, website for starters). They might be allowed to edit their own talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- As far as I know, alternate accounts of banned users are typically blocked to enforce the ban (bot accounts being a subset). Even if they were not, a user who was banned could not reasonably continue operating a bot because they need to be able to respond to queries about their bot operations. –xenotalk 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Given the main focus of Δ's edits, I think this is a pretty reasonable solution. However, I don't think a total ban on mainspace edits from his main account is needed. Perhaps something less restrictive but easy to enforce, like he may not edit more than one article per day with his main/non-bot account could be allowed. (Something similar was proposed in the workshop.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would be interested in hearing from Betacommand on the possibility of prohibiting him from any form of automated or scripted editing, except within the approved-bot paradigm. I'll ping his talk page and invite him to comment here, although I would understand if he wants nothing to do with these proceedings. AGK [•] 14:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we could work out the details, so that its not a farce like the VPR where I cant even get approval for fixing whitespace issues, and will actually let me be productive, Im all for that. The main draw back with the VPR is that too many people want me banned. ΔT The only constant 14:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was marred by bad examples of what the task was supposed to be doing. Link to discussion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we could work out the details, so that its not a farce like the VPR where I cant even get approval for fixing whitespace issues, and will actually let me be productive, Im all for that. The main draw back with the VPR is that too many people want me banned. ΔT The only constant 14:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would be interested in hearing from Betacommand on the possibility of prohibiting him from any form of automated or scripted editing, except within the approved-bot paradigm. I'll ping his talk page and invite him to comment here, although I would understand if he wants nothing to do with these proceedings. AGK [•] 14:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- To me, the central problem is how Betacommand interacts with the community and our readership. Those interactions which are unsatisfactory are always related to those automated or scripted edits that have not been approved and tested in advance, for instance when he uses automated scripts (like Twinkle or AWB) for which there is no approval process. His bots - vetted by the community's Bot Approvals Group - run without controversy, and δbot has been running well for some time and without issue. I understand that other bot operators (like MZMcBride) have offered to take over the running of δbot, but I think that does a disservice to Beta - and to ban him because, ostensibly, his usefulness is in running bots and "anybody else can do that, so we don't need him" would be astonishingly callous. If there are feasible alternative remedies than to remove Betacommand from the site, we should hear them out.
When we turn to the proposed decision and consider how to resolve the issue with Betacommand's approach to interaction, I rejected the one-year ban, because the problem is with Betacommand's interactions - which a one-year break from Wikipedia would not solve. An indefinite ban, with a return only upon the presentation of a satisfactory plan for contributing constructively, would be a solution in that it would ensure Betacommand could only return if he became capable of contributing without the generation of a plethora of heated discussion. However, if we could agree that Betacommand was only problematic inasmuch as he runs (and apparently messes up) unapproved cleanup-style runs (not vetted bots), then a sensible solution could be to ban him from making any edit that was not approved in advance by BAG. Of those remedies that would meaningfully resolve the "Betacommand problem", I am inclined to pass the least severe proposal; if we do so and the problem persists, a siteban could be instituted by motion with little difficulty (and a remedy resolving that we will siteban in the event of continued issues with Betacommand may need to be included). Apologies for the verbosity, but I wanted to set my views down clearly before we proceed. AGK [•] 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- AGK Im not sure you are seeing all the facts, there have actually been almost no issues with my cleanup edits. Yes there where a few issues when I started testing a google books integration feature. But that was fairly short lived. Other than that my cleanup edits have actually gotten me a barnstar (User_talk:Δ/20110901#The_American_Civil_War_Barnstar and a request for other pages to be cleaned up). And most of the complaints have been procedural. (what is a pattern, and speed issues). and really not about content of the edit. When a user comes to my talk page I have been going far out of my way to address their issues. ΔT The only constant 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is really the point of my proposal re NFCC, where more heat than light was generated. There is no fundamental objection to "good stuff being done", there are as far as I can see four classes of issue:
- Individual NFCC objections ("Oy! That's my picture!").
- Objections to how Δ dealt with the above.
- Systemic errors
- Procedural objections (edit rate pattern, etc.)
- This is really the point of my proposal re NFCC, where more heat than light was generated. There is no fundamental objection to "good stuff being done", there are as far as I can see four classes of issue:
- Now having the NFCC stuff dealt with at a noticeboard deals with 1 & 2. 3 is a matter of testing and revising the software, which Δ is willing to do when an issue is found. 4 is the tail wagging the dog, and can be dumped if we fix the first three.
- Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- I'm interested in alternatives to banning, especially if there are useful bots to be saved. I'd like to see this on the front page. And I'll get around to wrting the clean start proposal in a moment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are no alternatives. We're past that now, with ArbCom voting to ban Δ from the project. Unless you want to suspend this proposed decision page and get back to the drawing board, addressing the serious issues I raised back in November ([1]), you might as well close this case. The rest of this is just wasted effort. You, ArbCom, are going to ban him because it's the easiest, most expedient thing to do; not because it makes sense, is a good decision, or addresses the serious underlying issues in this case that have been generated by parties other than Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am willing to give Xeno's suggestion some serious consideration. I do not believe that Betacommand is eligible for a clean start under current policies, nor do I think anyone should be under the impression that there is much likelihood that it would succeed. In fact, I suspect any subsequent account would be quickly identified and we'd be back on the same hamster wheel. Will see if I can come up with some suitable wording for a proposal. Risker (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I had a go at a draft wording: Betacommand is indefinitely prohibited from editing Wikipedia except from an approved bot account to carry out clearly delineated tasks specifically authorized by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Except for his userspace (including usertalk space), his main account may only edit on talk pages or noticeboards and only to respond to queries about his approved bot operations. Feel free to tweak, etc. –xenotalk 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- He needs to be able to use his main account to make edits required to file and comment in his BRFA's, as well. Courcelles 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Well-spotted. –xenotalk 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've proposed this formally as remedy six. Courcelles 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Well-spotted. –xenotalk 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- He needs to be able to use his main account to make edits required to file and comment in his BRFA's, as well. Courcelles 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I had a go at a draft wording: Betacommand is indefinitely prohibited from editing Wikipedia except from an approved bot account to carry out clearly delineated tasks specifically authorized by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Except for his userspace (including usertalk space), his main account may only edit on talk pages or noticeboards and only to respond to queries about his approved bot operations. Feel free to tweak, etc. –xenotalk 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to explore Xeno's suggestion, if Betacommand believes this would allow him to continue to be useful; I've started two proposals for article-space restrictions on the workshop. See Workshop#Article edit rate restriction. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Be useful to clarify now if there is to be a limit on the number of bots. A phased increase might be worth considering. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This seems like a terrible idea. If someone has a long and intractable history of editing disruptively in some area (say articles about penguins), usually they get topic-banned so they have to stop editing about penguins but can still edit any other topic they like. The proposal here is the opposite, something like "so-and-so may henceforth only edit about penguins, subject to the endorsement of the penguin approval group". I don't have any problem with Δ editing like a normal editor (i.e. completely manually and on a normal human scale) but IMHO he should be completely removed for a while from bots and scripts of any sort (thus the 25 page/day limit proposal). To Silktork re "saving useful bots": the bots involved are mostly not that useful (I'd say they're worse than useless, but that's just me), and any useful ones can be reimplemented by others. We should not let "vendor lock-in" dictate our actions in any case. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- User:Δbot is worse than useless? When I say 'bots', I am talking about proper and approved bots doing tasks the community actually wants, not script-based wikignome editing. –xenotalk 13:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm using the term "bots" to refer to all of Δ's automated editing scripts. I do understand that some specific bots of his (like the SPI thing) are considered useful in some circles. I still very much dislike this remedy from both directions: 1) the disruptive bot issues I've already stated; 2) the remedy effectively boots Δ from the editing community and turns him into a type of minion who can only run the damn bots. If I read it properly, it means he can't make legitimate human edits (e.g. addition of sourced material) to articles; can't comment on AfD's; can't ask questions at Reference Desk, etc. I don't dislike Δ and am not trying to remove him from the project. If you think Δ can operate BAG-approved bots non-disruptively, then fine, but there should also still be an outlet for him to edit the way almost everyone else does (i.e. manually, or anyway at human-like speed). So I prefer my proposal[2] or some variant of it, over remedy 6 from the current PD. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Give how discussions seem to work at BAG [3] I don't know if this is actually going to solve anything with respect to drama. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The clean start option
I am glad this comity is considering clean start as a possible remedy. I beg members to be objective in weighing this option. There are assertions that this form of remedy implies an external blame is at core. Please read the policy again and if I may be so bold as to ask, please also show the prose that supports the assertion. It is problematic that Betacommand is under current sanctions, because that would preclude availability of this remedy. The proposal to vacate sanctions could be adopted and the clean start immediately ensue. With well crafted word, and the prohibitive sanction against evading scrutiny, this remedy does no harm to the encyclopedia, nor place jeopardy upon it. With respectful intent, thank you for considering this case, and this request as well. - My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I find it difficult that anyone would in good faith suggest a fresh start option. That's literally the same as shoving all of someone's past crimes under the rug and then enrolling them in the witness protection program. Jtrainor (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think a clean start option is viable either. That said, this RFAR has become the opposite of what you describe; rather than address the current situation as is, and try to find a solution to that, it's become a drag-everything-out-from-under-the-rug-that-EVER-happened and crucify Δ for it. The double jeopardy option being used here on this case is the opposite of the clean start, and just as unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary. We should consider past behavior when determining remedies. If we never considered what people did in the past, we would always give people a slap on the wrist. He won't be punished twice for doing something, rather he will be punished for failing to change his problematic behavior. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- He already has been double penalized. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the third time Beta's been to arbcom. I fail to see how the stuff that led to the previous two isn't pertinent. Jtrainor (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please read Double jeopardy. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should read it, since you clearly don't understand how it applies (or doesn't apply) here. Jtrainor (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (a.k.a. What JTrainor said). Buffs (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- @JTrainor: I have of course read it. You apparently see nothing wrong in persecuting Delta for things he's already been brought to ArbCom for, and previously sanctioned for. I do. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even in court, where "prior bad acts" are strictly prohibited for determining guilt or innocence, they can be brought into evidence to establish a pattern of behavior, either in establishing a past modus operandi for purposes of a circumstantial case, or in the sentencing phase to establish a habitual offender status. Arbitration isn't a legal proceeding, thus not only does double jeopardy not apply (Wikipedia, like any private organization, may make its own rules regarding behavior, and are not required to provide the protections mandated of the government in the Bill of Rights), but that this is the third time that the community has had to resort to bringing Beta/Delta to an arbitration hearing is material to the case; it indicates that the community is finding itself unable to resolve these issues on a frequent basis. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
@Jtrainor - What do you find difficult? Can I ease the difficulty? I do stand available to answer any direct question you may have. In general, I do oppose the comparison of Betacommand's conduct with criminal conduct. This because generally I see no comparison. And I am just naive enough to believe it is not necessary. We have a southern saying: "you don't kick a man when he is down" which I have come to understand, and agree. Perhaps we could see a bit less "kicking", or not. My76Strat (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Need a link to the *current* community restrictions
I know I found them when reviewing evidence a month ago, but I am not entirely certain that the version of community sanctions I have found is the most current one, particularly given all the amendments and modifications done over time. Could someone please link me to the *current* iteration of Betacommand/Δ's community sanction? Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If this is not the in force document, please advise my talk page so I may also know because I believe it is. Thank you. - My76Strat (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- There were several iterations of community restrictions, ranging form an outright ban on running bots to the current ones, which are detailed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Betacommu. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, this is a years-long saga, so to some extent the current community restrictions are what the community currently thinks they are, with various ArbCom remedies mixed in there too. Originally there was a prohibition on "automated or appearing to be automated" edits, but to the best of my knowledge ASCII has linked to the correct description of current community santcions. Franamax (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also I think Beta is still prohibited from running bots, except where Beta has been allowed to run bots. (!) Franamax (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The general prohibition on automated tools (passed in May 2008) turned out to be unenforceable because you can't prove that a script is used, so my understanding is that the current "pattern" restrictions (passed in Aug-Sep 2008) were worded to work around the need to unequivocally prove infringement on unauthorized tool usage. Fast forward to Oct 2011: interested parties couldn't agree that a script-generated sequence of edits constituted a pattern, so that wording failed to be effective as well (except at producing drama). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. Nevertheless, this committee has decided that the sanctions have failed, and have taken ownership of them. Further, there's a heavy implication that the failure is entirely Δ's fault. It's a facepalm situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The general prohibition on automated tools (passed in May 2008) turned out to be unenforceable because you can't prove that a script is used, so my understanding is that the current "pattern" restrictions (passed in Aug-Sep 2008) were worded to work around the need to unequivocally prove infringement on unauthorized tool usage. Fast forward to Oct 2011: interested parties couldn't agree that a script-generated sequence of edits constituted a pattern, so that wording failed to be effective as well (except at producing drama). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Courcelles is correct
There absolutely are ways forward instead of back. And Xeno's proposal above is one such. The attempt to follow the "community imposed sanctions" was another, which resulted in more problems than it resolved (perhaps suggesting that the "community sanctions" were a complete failure, in terms of drafting, implementation and observance).
Regardless, if the result of this case is a ban, or something that destroys the value (either net, or potential) that Δ can bring to the project, it will be a sad day.
Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- The problem is the ArbCom is already near unanimous in banning Δ. Unless someone or several someones (count me in if you'd like) want to sign a petition or something to get ArbCom to back up, the result of this RFAR is a fait accompli. It's over already. See 2.1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The majority is 9 in this case. There are clearly a number of Arbs looking for a way forward, and a number who have not commented yet, who I would expect to be forward looking (but then I am an optimist). Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- The majority is 9 in this case. There are clearly a number of Arbs looking for a way forward, and a number who have not commented yet, who I would expect to be forward looking (but then I am an optimist). Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
- I hardly think so. We are by no means agreed on how to resolve this dispute, and discussion is ongoing. If Betacommand is sitebanned, it would not be by a unanimous vote. AGK [•] 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- If good faith discussions on this RFAR really are happening, then there should not be an active vote on final decisions. It's kinda like people voting on who should win a car race when the the lead cars are three seconds from the finish, and barring spontaneous combustion they could glide across the finish. The fate of this RFAR is already decided unless the proposed decision voting is suspended pending further discussion. Of the 6 arbs voting support/opposed to banning Δ, it's 5 support 1 oppose; that's 83%. To avoid banning 7 of the remaining 10 would have to oppose. That's about as likely as a white Christmas in Tahiti. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let the process run its course. Whether something is likely to happen or not, it doesn't mean it will. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you believe in snow in Tahiti then. No, more likely, you're very happy at the outcome regardless of proper process, and would rather just seem him banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty sure WP:AGF is a policy, not just a good suggestion, but I guess that's optional now...
- I take little joy in ANYONE'S banishment from WP. Hell, I tried to help Axmann8 and he's turned into a virtual pariah across WP. What I would prefer is for delta to become a productive member of WP who will follow the rules; he's been given so many second chances it's kind of ridiculous and ArbCom as a whole agrees with this assessment.
- As for "proper process", I haven't seen anything that is out of line for ArbCom.
- Lastly, Tahiti doesn't have any records of snow, but they've only been tracking low temps for 5 years now and overall weather for the past 23 years. However, since it has snowed in Hawaii...in June...recently..., I would assume it is possible to have the same in Tahiti. Likewise, complaining about the outcome when the outcome hasn't happened is absurd...come to think of it, complaining itself seems kind of silly in this instance. I guess you can go to Jimbo and see what he says, but I think it's probably best to simply let it run its course. Near as I can tell, even in the "worst case scenario", they aren't permanently banning him, but only for a year. Try to think of it as a positive; perhaps that year will do us all some good. Happy New Year! Buffs (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- (e/c) Hammer, we're (many of us) aware of the level of admiration and mutual respect between yourself and Buffs. Please don't bring that here. That comment is pure sniping and I see no way it will help the Arbs arrive at a Proposed decision. And do recall that right up until the motion to close is carried, Arbs can change their votes, especially if palatable options are proposed. Personally, I'd like to see more attention paid to John Vandenberg's workshop proposals. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tell that to Buffs. This RFAR's been going on for a long time, and only when I begin to edit things does Buffs show up? Right. As to my comments, I was making comments about Tahiti before he showed up. No sniping is intended, only noting what is happening. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've been reading it since it first came about (from delta's page, not from anything you did. Everything seems like it's rolling along just fine. I thought that your comments here assume the worst about everyone else (I guess I'm included now too). I too think JV's workshop proposals have both merit and real possibility. So, instead of sniping, why not participate in a better solution other than "he shouldn't have any restrictions". Let's work towards an amicable solution or at least one that better represents your views (for example, 10 months of a ban would be better than 12, right?...and I could support that. There's no need for a year just to make it a round figure...) Buffs (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just adopt my proposal about mentoring proposed some time ago on the Workshop page. So, some editor in good standing who has the relevant experience with operating bots, will be in charge of setting restrictions on what Delta is allowed to do. This solves two problems. Not only are the problems that Delta has caused contained, but also the drama generated when Delta is alleged to have violated some restriction will end, because Delta's restrictions are now off topic to the community. This is now the sole task of the mentor. The community may raise some perceive problem about Delta to the mentor, but it's always the mentor who takes some decision w.r.t. restrictions. If Delta violates a restriction set by the mentor, then that's also an issue between Delta and the mentor only. The mentor does have the duty to report Delta back to ArbCom if Delta were to misbehave and/or not stick to the rules set by the mentor. ArbCom can then revoke the mentorship agreement, which automatically bans Delta from undertaking any automated tasks. Count Iblis (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should read the /Evidence. Mentoring was tried before, including by one of the current Arbs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know, but that was conventional mentoring, what I'm proposing is far more restrictive; it will precisely address the problems while allowing Delta to do all the good work that he's capable of doing. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The proposal that all his tasks be BAG-approved is essentially the same thing as your proposal to make "Delta's restrictions [...] off topic to the community". BAG is a very small group. There are fewer active BAG members than sitting Arbitrators. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know, but that was conventional mentoring, what I'm proposing is far more restrictive; it will precisely address the problems while allowing Delta to do all the good work that he's capable of doing. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is UNINVOLVED?
Assuming the community restrictions are continued/imported as AE-remedies, who is going to be considered uninvolved for the purpose of AE discussion and decision-making? This is a serious question because these are not typical content disputes focused on a topic area, but are about systematic changes to many unrelated articles. Reading the proceeding here and also the previous AN[I] threads, one cannon escape the feeling that over time Δ has engendered a dedicated fan club who shows up with regularity at most discussions about him. And the positions of the participants in previous disputes involving Δ are a very good predictor of their position in subsequent ones. A rather obvious and prolonged factionalism has developed around the "Δ-problem". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, the recently but inconclusively closed discussion Wikipedia:AE#Suggested_change_to_practice:_comments_by_non-neutral_editors should be of relevance here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Accounts FoF incomplete
I think there were some CU-confirmed socks besides the "official" list given in this Arbitration. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Betacommand. Amusingly, one of these was doing in 2009 the kind of "clean up" that was again in focus in the autumn of 2011: Special:Contributions/Shimane Kanagi. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Casliber's query
The antecedent is stated here. I.E. the case was a request for clarification as to whether a proposed task fell under the aegis of a previous ARBCOM imposed restriction. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
- Indeed, the entire nature of the case is suspect and ill-handled. See this, which is still unaddressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- We aren't a bureaucracy and your question was answered by Coren...who just happens to be on ArbCom. But what do I know... Buffs (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- You will note of course that Coren's comment, which was quoted by CBM, was from 31 October. My posting was from 8 November. So, as I'm sure you are now able to see, Coren did not respond to me and answer my question. In fact, as I've previously noted, nobody from ArbCom has addressed the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I realise there is an antecedent, in that the complexity and finickiness of the restrictions meant that there was alot of squabbling and lots of people unhappy. Hopefully the new remedy sorts this out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Δ's all bad, right? Right?
Some months ago, I began developing a list of Δ's accomplishments on Wikipedia. This was in response to a rather vocal group of editors who despise Δ, and seem to think everything he has done is sort of a inverse Midas; 'anything he touches turns to crap'. Given the committee seems to be hung up on trying to decide whether Δ is a benefit to the project, it would be in their interest to consider this non-exhaustive list of his accomplishments here. See User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- HS, this is nothing but a straw man argument. No one has said that Δ hasn't accomplished anything of note/anything good. He certainly has.
- This Arbcom case is reflective of the things he hasn't done well on, specifically: performing actions that were explicitly against prior sanctions/community consensus.
- I also agree that his positive contributions should be taken into account when "dishing out" sanctions; his total edit history should be considered, not solely the problem edits. Buffs (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, Betacommand is not all bad. He is not even, as bad, as some have portrayed him to be, at all! Hammersoft, I appreciate your efforts here. I misjudged you from our first interaction, and feel sorry that it took until now for me to realize I was wrong about you. I have a genuine empathy for the way you feel as I interpret your writing. It carries your emotion. Hey, I'm with you friend! My76Strat (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Interesting. People put up evidence of Δ's behaving badly, and that's ok. I put up evidence of his accomplishments here, and I suffer criticism from you for it. Wow. Look at 2.1. It's not gaining majority support, but four ArbCom members felt it was just to say "the community has determined that Betacommand's edits are a detriment to the encyclopedia". If you don't like the presence of User:Hammersoft/Δ vitae in this discussion, you are welcome to develop your own page detailing what you see as his failures. But, criticizing me for posting something in response to an ArbCom motion is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is important and I am glad someone has done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I never said the list of accomplishments was wrong (in fact, I complimented it: "I also agree that his positive contributions should be taken into account..."). As Carl agreed below, your argument that a group of editors thinks he is "all bad" is an absurd statement (with no evidence) that should rightly be ignored as a logical fallacy. Please stop resorting to hyperbole and assuming the worst of others; likewise, please read what people actually write instead of assuming that they automatically disagree with you. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Over history, you've accused me of violating WP:AGF more times than I care to count. Enough. This case isn't about me. You got a bone to pick with me, then go elsewhere. This isn't the platform for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right on one point, this isn't about you. My criticism is about your use of logical fallacies and why they shouldn't be construed as a valid argument. Again, this isn't about you, but if you continue to put in phrasing which is logically invalid, it deserves to be challenged and pointed out WHY it is invalid, lest people make judgements based upon it. My note of WP:AGF is not a comment on you violating anything, per se, but a comment on another logical fallacy which you continue to utilize: poisoning the well. I offer the following examples from this discussion alone:
- "...you're very happy at the outcome regardless of proper process, and would rather just seem him banned."
- "The fate of this RFAR is already decided...To avoid banning 7 of the remaining 10 would have to oppose. That's about as likely as a white Christmas in Tahiti."
- "...in response to a rather vocal group of editors who despise Δ, and seem to think everything he has done is sort of a inverse Midas; 'anything he touches turns to crap'."
- So, just dial back the hyperbole, stop demonizing those who disagree with you, and just present your opinion without being so hypercritical of others. Buffs (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right on one point, this isn't about you. My criticism is about your use of logical fallacies and why they shouldn't be construed as a valid argument. Again, this isn't about you, but if you continue to put in phrasing which is logically invalid, it deserves to be challenged and pointed out WHY it is invalid, lest people make judgements based upon it. My note of WP:AGF is not a comment on you violating anything, per se, but a comment on another logical fallacy which you continue to utilize: poisoning the well. I offer the following examples from this discussion alone:
- I never said the list of accomplishments was wrong (in fact, I complimented it: "I also agree that his positive contributions should be taken into account..."). As Carl agreed below, your argument that a group of editors thinks he is "all bad" is an absurd statement (with no evidence) that should rightly be ignored as a logical fallacy. Please stop resorting to hyperbole and assuming the worst of others; likewise, please read what people actually write instead of assuming that they automatically disagree with you. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is important and I am glad someone has done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Awareness of Betacommand's positive bot contributions would be worth stating as part of the case, especially if we are going to vote on a motion that allows Betacommand to contribute through bots. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hammersoft, thank you for creating this page. In my view, the evidence page has been of less value without such a submission. AGK [•] 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do think the claim that a group of editors "despises" Δ is a straw man argument. Δ has a long history of problematic editing and has been flouting his community sanctions, but this does not mean that he is "all bad", although it does reflect on his suitability to participate on Wikipedia. It's a mistake to assume there is some personal animus when editors point out the problems with Δ's editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is it the business of Arbcom to hand out back-pattings and attaboys? Jtrainor (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- So the business of ArbCom is only to deal out sanctions and criticism? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's the purpose of Arbcom to deal with disputes that the community is unable to resolve for itself. You want to compliment Betacommand, give him a barnstar. Jtrainor (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- So I'm not permitted by you to present evidence that supports him? Only evidence against him is allowed here? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- HS, stop trying to pick a fight. You have this evidence presented (and rightly so). Quit presenting more logical fallacies to sort through: "Only evidence against him is allowed here?" as well as argumentum ad misericordiam
- Jtrainor, HS is entitled to present evidence he feels is valid to the matter at hand. As several ArbCom members have clearly posted (and others agreed...including myself) ArbCom should consider the entirety of delta's contributions, not solely those which some view as problematic. Buffs (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Hammersoft; can you finish adding the dates, order it by date, and put it in /Evidence. Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some dates are impossible to discern. I've added a link to the file in /Evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
BAG-approved Only + ??
I have followed this case as a completely uninvolved observer. I expected a choice between a ban and something like this (Bot Group approved tasks only) - I think they are choices that would address the issue rather than skirting it or nibbling at it, maybe the only choices that would do so. However, if Beta's to stay active, it is not enough to allow interaction with users - the quality of that interaction should be addressed as well. I'm not workshopping a proposal for you - I think it needs to be handled more skillfully and gently than I could - but there needs to be a remedy directed at the quality of Beta's interaction with other users in conjunction with the BAG-approved only remedy. Jd2718 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's very difficult to understand what factors go into an editor's failure to collaborate effectively, but my understanding was that Betacommand's interactions were problematic when he ran general scripts and automated edits - not when he was operating a bot. If we remove him from those areas where he fails to work within the rules (including by interacting with professionalism), then we should significantly mitigate the problem. I think this is a fairer, more elegant solution than slamming down the sitebanhammer. Of course, this is just my view; the other arbitrators may disagree. AGK [•] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- A key difference is that the SPI bot is not editing articles, it's archiving what is essentially a structured discussion page. That sort of task is much more straightforward than article editing. For example, my bot PeerReviewBot is also just responsible for archiving certain discussions, and I can basically just let it run on its own, but if I wanted to make a different bot of mine edit a large number of articles it would take custom testing for each separate job. The need for good communication skills is much higher for article-editing bots than archival bots.
- Another issue is that BetacommandBot was not operating in the way the bots normally operate; the need for bot approval was ignored and the editing rate was engineered to be absurdly high. After that bot was blocked, Betacommand continued running bot-like tasks without approval on his main account, even when doing so violated his community sanction, right up to October 2011. So viewing the SPI bot as evidence that BetacommandBot could work again is, to stretch an analogy, similar to saying that someone in prison for bad business practices is now rehabilitated because they have been successful at making license plates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Δbot has been operating since summer 2010. It was approved for operation by BAG (approval) and ArbCom (approval). Since that time, it has never been blocked [4]. It has performed ~6800 edits since 1 October 2011, 35,844 in total [5]. In reviewing where this bot has been discussed [6], I can find no reference to discussions complaining about its operation, or abuses of its operation by its operator Δ. If you have diffs proving abuse of this bot or its operator in using this boat, then please provide them. Otherwise, there's no evidence to conclude that Δbot has been anything other than examplary in every respect. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that running an SPI clerk bot is quite different than running a bot that would be doing article maintenance. I looked at the contribs for Δbot in article space. I expected to see none, since there is no task approval or even task proposal for such edits. But there are actually a number of edits [7] for "adjusting filename after rename". Given that Δ was doing unapproved bot-like tasks on his main account at the same time that the SPI bot was running, and also given that even SPI bot was doing some unapproved things, it's hard to see how the SPI bot is evidence that he has changed his ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Given the paucity of edits in the set you note, and the fact that 24 of 27 of them occurred in a narrow window in a time period in which he was doing the same type of edit on his main account [8], I'm willing to assume it was a mistake of being logged into the wrong account, which he quickly rectified after a few minutes. It's not been repeated in the ~7000 edits the bot has done since then, nor was any damage done to the project in the process. I fail to see any maliciousness in these mainspace edits from the bot account. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody has alleged "maliciousness". The real issue is carelessness, if the situation is as you suggest. I mentioned it only because it leans against a claim that the SPI bot is a spotless example of bot operation. The real problems with Δ's editing were the edits to the main namespace, on his main account, that violated his community sanction. Given that the tasks for SPI bot are all intended to be on the Wikipedia namespace and Δ's user space, that bot is not evidence that Δ would follow rules for a bot editing the main namespace. On the other hand, we have BetacommandBot as a long term example of how Δ actually did operate such a bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The point is, it was a brief oversight, rapidly corrected, that has not been repeated, and did not cause any damage to the project. Do you have anything to show some pattern of abuse by him with regards to the operation of Δbot or not? What you've provided so far is a brief mistake. Hanging him on a cross for it? Come on. Also, BetacommandBot has been blocked for nearly three years now. So, it is utterly impossible for Δ to ever improve? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Given the paucity of edits in the set you note, and the fact that 24 of 27 of them occurred in a narrow window in a time period in which he was doing the same type of edit on his main account [8], I'm willing to assume it was a mistake of being logged into the wrong account, which he quickly rectified after a few minutes. It's not been repeated in the ~7000 edits the bot has done since then, nor was any damage done to the project in the process. I fail to see any maliciousness in these mainspace edits from the bot account. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that running an SPI clerk bot is quite different than running a bot that would be doing article maintenance. I looked at the contribs for Δbot in article space. I expected to see none, since there is no task approval or even task proposal for such edits. But there are actually a number of edits [7] for "adjusting filename after rename". Given that Δ was doing unapproved bot-like tasks on his main account at the same time that the SPI bot was running, and also given that even SPI bot was doing some unapproved things, it's hard to see how the SPI bot is evidence that he has changed his ways. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Another issue is that BetacommandBot was not operating in the way the bots normally operate; the need for bot approval was ignored and the editing rate was engineered to be absurdly high. After that bot was blocked, Betacommand continued running bot-like tasks without approval on his main account, even when doing so violated his community sanction, right up to October 2011. So viewing the SPI bot as evidence that BetacommandBot could work again is, to stretch an analogy, similar to saying that someone in prison for bad business practices is now rehabilitated because they have been successful at making license plates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm basically saying SPI bot is irrelevant to his ability to operate an article-editing bot. As to the last question, we can look at the history of arbitration cases, community sanctions, bans, and the evidence in this case, and everyone can come to their own conclusions.
My opinion, which I have previously expressed, is that if we don't want a full ban, the best option is to impose much firmer sanctions that do not rely on the ability of Δ to modulate his own editing. The BAG-only option seems like it has a possibility of achieving that, I think. It's parallel to the previous requirement that he has to post on VPR, but it no longer assumes that he will follow the rules of his own accord. And, by moving enforcement to AE, it makes the penalties more likely to stick if Δ violates the restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is anybody suggesting an article editing bot? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If remedy 6 passes, it says that Δ is not allowed to edit mainspace at all with the account "Δ" and he has to file a bot approval for any task that he wants to carry out in the main namespace (also in other namespaces, with a few exceptions). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- But not nobody is suggesting he run such a bot, and it's very unlikely such a bot would ever be approved. So why the concern? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the remedy passes, and Δ chooses not to make any requests to edit the main namespace, that would be fine. I believe from arbitrator comments the goal of remedy 6 is to give him the opportunity to edit the main namespace in some form. Once the case is closed, it will be up to Δ to decide how to proceed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. BAG has a mandate to ensure any task they approve has consensus to run. Delta has had problems checking to ensure what he wants to do has consensus amongst the editorial community. By taking the decision to run a task or not partly out of his hands (I say partly only because any task Delta does not wish to run will not be sought approval for) and forcing it into a venue already charged with that mandate, it is my hope the problems would be eliminated. Yes, it pretty much has the end-effect of meaning Delta can't do a task that only effects five or ten articles, but at this point we need a remedy that is ironclad and easy for all parties to determine if it is violated or not. Courcelles 19:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the remedy passes, and Δ chooses not to make any requests to edit the main namespace, that would be fine. I believe from arbitrator comments the goal of remedy 6 is to give him the opportunity to edit the main namespace in some form. Once the case is closed, it will be up to Δ to decide how to proceed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- But not nobody is suggesting he run such a bot, and it's very unlikely such a bot would ever be approved. So why the concern? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- If remedy 6 passes, it says that Δ is not allowed to edit mainspace at all with the account "Δ" and he has to file a bot approval for any task that he wants to carry out in the main namespace (also in other namespaces, with a few exceptions). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What have we got so far?
- Betacommand's edits have been substantially repetitive minor edits. (Proposed Finding 1)
- The community can impose sanctions. (Proposed Principle 2)
- The community imposed sanctions on Betacommand for concerns regarding edits and behaviour. (PF 2.2)
- The sanctions have not resolved concerns. (PF4)
- ArbCom can overturn or reduce those sanctions. (PP 3)
- Those sanctions may be increased for repeat offences. (PP 4)
Remedies:
- The sanctions stay in place - with the community (Proposed Remedy 1.1)
- The sanctions stay in place - with ArbCom (PR 1.5)
- Betacommand is banned (PR 2.1/2.2)
- Betacommand is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation (PR 4)
- Betacommand is limited to BAG approved tasks (PR 6)
- What do we need?
- Findings on why the sanctions are not working. Is the problem the sanctions, Betacommand, the community - or a bit of all these?
- Findings on Betacommand's recent edits
- Findings on Betacommand's recent interactions/behaviour
- Findings on Betacommand's recent bot operations
- Findings on the community's current attitude to the sanctions
- Details on how remedies are to work:
- If Betacommand is limited to BAG approved tasks - how many bots can he run? do any of the current restrictions, sanctions, topic-bans apply to the bots? if so, which ones?
- If prohibited from using any automation, how are automated edits to be traced/identified? Would such a ban apply to the existing bot(s)?
- If Betacommand is to edit in any form (bot, manual, automated) while under restrictions, how is the community to investigate violations and impose the proposed enforcement, given that there appears to be some drama in connection to previous investigations?
I feel if we are to allow bots, that there should be a limit for at least a year to see how it works. Perhaps limit to three? The community sanctions would not apply to the bots, though the topic ban should still be in place. All forms of editing sanctions should come under ArbCom (which is what PR 1.5 is saying). SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Findings on the community's current attitude to the sanctions: "The community have not been able to come to a consensus regarding maintaining or dissolving the community sanctions on Betacommand." SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Findings on Betacommand's recent bot operations: "Betacommand's bot, User:Δbot, has been operating without problems since its creation in July 2010." SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've looked in the evidence page and don't see evidence for recent poor interactions. Would someone please supply such evidence, or we'll have to assume that Betacommand is responding within reasonable parameters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- In my evidence, there is at least [9] and [10]. Here is a long thread in which another editor tries to improve Δ's communication [11]. Some other examples of the same "I'm right, you're wrong" opinion are [12] [13]. There was also the incident in which Δ was changing references in various ways (apparently ignoring WP:CITEVAR). Some of his comments there include [14] [15]. Before I look for more, are those the sorts of things you are looking for? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- All evidence is useful. I'd rather have evidence, no matter how small, than assumptions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to avoid simply copying every diff from his talk page. If there is a particular sort of interaction you are looking for, I can look for it. It also depends on what you mean by "recent". As you know, the MickMacNee case closed in August with Δ being admonished [16]. Three was not an enormous amount of activity on Δ's talk page in between then and the incident in October that started this arbitration. Going farther back in the year takes us into the NFCC removals, which generated more discussion, but were covered by the NFCC ban Δ received. This comment with blinking text is interesting, though [17] — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ideally what I would like is a balanced and neutral analysis of Betacommand's interactions with the community over the past 12 months. So if there is a dif which has him saying "That is wrong because it was agreed 30 days ago...", the agreement 30 days ago is looked at, and compared to the action in dispute, so the response can be judged in context. I realise that is asking a lot, but isolated difs of fairly standard disagreements are not adequate evidence of either good or bad interaction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to avoid simply copying every diff from his talk page. If there is a particular sort of interaction you are looking for, I can look for it. It also depends on what you mean by "recent". As you know, the MickMacNee case closed in August with Δ being admonished [16]. Three was not an enormous amount of activity on Δ's talk page in between then and the incident in October that started this arbitration. Going farther back in the year takes us into the NFCC removals, which generated more discussion, but were covered by the NFCC ban Δ received. This comment with blinking text is interesting, though [17] — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- All evidence is useful. I'd rather have evidence, no matter how small, than assumptions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Anything could be interesting when taken out of context. In reference to the "blinking text"; what actually happened is this:
- 00:15, 17 June 2011; Δ removes an image (since CSD#F7 deleted) from 2011 Pan American Games medal table for lacking a rationale for use on that page, per WP:NFCC #10c [18]
- 00:16, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 restores the image apparently without adding a rationale to the image [19]
- 00:18, 17 June 2011; Δ reverts Intoronto1125 [20]
- 00:18, 17 June 2011; Δ places uw-nonfree on Intoronto1125 [21]
- 00:18, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 claims without providing evidence that a couple of administrators have approved the image to be used on that page [22]
- 00:20, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts Δ's 00:18 talk page warning message, calling him an "idiot" in the edit summary [23]
- 00:25, 17 June 2011; Δ's "blinking text" response [24]
- 00:30, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 claims there's a rationale on the talk page of the image [25]
- 00:32, 17 June 2011; Δ points out he is in the wrong, as there is a rationale but not for that article but for another article where it is used; a violation of WP:NFCC #10c [26]
- 00:37, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 doesn't understand [27]
- 00:38, 17 June 2011; Δ again shows where the problem is [28]
- 00:40, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 says he'll change it [29]
- 00:43, 17 June 2011; Δ again points out where the problem is [30]
- 00:46, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts [31]
- 01:11, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 reverts himself, removing the image [32]
- 01:12, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 asks Δ if he can put the image back up [33]
- 01:37, 17 June 2011; Δ tells him yes, and that he doesn't dispute the rationale [34]
- 02:45, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 again reverts himself, restoring the image [35]
- 03:05, 17 June 2011; On Δ, Hammersoft indicates he does dispute the rationale [36]
- 05:51, 17 June 2011; administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise removes the image [37]
- 05:53, 17 June 2011; Future Perfect at Sunrise turns the article into a redirect, awaiting the results of the games [38]
- 05:54, 17 June 2011; Intoronto1125 goes back to a version of the article before Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the image [39]
- 06:17, 17 June 2011; Future Perfect at Sunrise again removes the image [40]
There's the context. I find it interesting that Δ is taken to task for making some text red and blinking, yet Intoronto1125 is never remonstrated for calling Δ an idiot or for edit warring in direct violation of WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dont forget that I also have an edit notice that describes the issue and how to fix it too, on my talk page. ΔT The only constant 15:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re Hammersoft: numbers 3 and 4 were already problematic, and that sort of reverting with a uw template is not what we would call "good communication". Best practices would be for Δ to leave a friendly and non-templated note explaining that the user just needs to add a rationale to the image, and to give the person time to respond. But arbcom should already know about the problems with Δ's NFCC removals, since the arbcom motion to ban him from NFCC is pretty recent. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The point is, you're finding fault with him for making text red and blinking in the face of someone who was violating WP:EW, WP:NFCC, and WP:NPA. Yet, you take him to task for that, and not Intoronto1125. Red blinking text might be a slight violation of WP:CIVIL, but that would be a stretch to even claim that, especially in the face of the personal attacks and edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes. The bot operator needs to stay calm under pressure. Operators doing things where this is predicable stress, like NFCC enforcement, need to be even more patient. In this case, a your timeline shows, Δ made the situation worse by reverting just two minutes later. There was nothing there that could not have waited for calm discussion or a back-and-forth on the user's talk page. No reasonable editor would expect that an immediate revert and template warning would help cool down the situation. If Δ can't deal patiently and kindly with editors who don't understand what the problem is, he's not suitable for that kind of work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you'll have to count me as an unreasonable editor, as I've countless times re-removed an image failing WP:NFCC #10c and placed a warning message at the same time. So, pray tell, what policy did he violate? Also, you're projecting failure on his part for running an NFCC bot because he won't be able to handle the stress of it. Grabbing at the future? For this? Any reasonable editor wouldn't expect him to be running an NFCC enforcement bot. Oh wait, I'm suddenly reasonable again :) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The point is, you're finding fault with him for making text red and blinking in the face of someone who was violating WP:EW, WP:NFCC, and WP:NPA. Yet, you take him to task for that, and not Intoronto1125. Red blinking text might be a slight violation of WP:CIVIL, but that would be a stretch to even claim that, especially in the face of the personal attacks and edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The above example dif, and the explanation, and the discussion surrounding it have been useful. I have got a good feel for the situation, and it confirms other impressions I have picked up. Thank you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, not two months into the job of ArbCom and you've already gained a talent for being cryptic. Nicely done :) (and I do mean that as praise). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"The fact that this was moved to voting prematurely "
Is this a joke? The case languished in the Workshop phase with little movement for just short of two months. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment, none of the remedies are passing (i.e. if they closed it now, their "solution" would be to do precisely nothing). Since it doesn't look like any of the older remedies will pass, I'd say it's a fair assessment of the situation. --NYKevin @299, i.e. 06:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess ArbCom is as prone to "no consensus" solutions as are other fora on Wikipedia... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
An offer and a request
An offer
For whatever it is worth, I am very willing to mentor Betacommand through whatever sanction, short of a site ban the committee may willingly adopt. I am generally available, and have an established rapport with him, such that I am confident "intense mentorship" could succeed.
In offering this service, I am willing to accept a tandem block, if and whenever Betacommand may warrant one. I would agree to be bound by a clause equivocating his failure, as a failure of my own. I would like to establish advance benchmarks that Betacommand and I can work in good faith to achieve which would clearly enunciate the path to normal editing. It would be a great advantage to success if a streamlined process was in place to request and perhaps effect temporary modification along the way if and whenever circumstances may warrant. And I assure with the weight of promise and the bond of word that I will monitor Betacommand and maintain a record of every potentially relevant action, discussion, or third opinion sought to show, demonstrably, the proactive steps taken to achieve "productive editing rehabilitation" and analysis of progress made. Respectfully submitted with prayerful hope and regard. My76Strat (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Request for candor
The above offer as well as some recent edits to the workshop page may be impossible to consider for procedural errors, missed deadlines, or any other reason, that being very new, I would reasonable not know. I hope where I may have been out of process I haven't been out of line. If the burden of my being tardy is too great, please advise me that I am too late. If there is any reason otherwise that I should compile what I believe is compelling, please advise so that I may begin in earnest, the proper construction of a document I do wish to respectfully present. My76Strat (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- As the committee is currently entertaining alternative proposals, I'd start, if I were you, by reworking this workshop proposal to name yourself as mentor and to list more specific conditions. Note also that there is a significant amount of skepticism towards forced mentorship, and also some skepticism towards Betacommand. Practically, I just don't think it's in the cards. As far as procedural rules are concerned, the only major one is "don't edit pages you're not supposed to," namely the main case page and the proposed decision subpage (the talk pages are OK). I'm not aware of you violating that. There's also, as always, WP:CIVIL, but I don't think that's been an issue either. You also mentioned having additional evidence. I think you should get that onto the evidence subpage as soon as possible. --NYKevin @324, i.e. 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Remedy 6 - BAG approval
Please don't do this. It's hard enough recruiting and keeping BAG members. Instructing us to wade into this field of figuring out what Betacommand can do with a bot, both in light of the community consensus and this case's restrictions, is simply sliding the headache to us. MBisanz talk 13:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- It appears they are vacating all other restrictions, so you can approve him to do whatever you want to, no strings attached. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, MBisanz; I've been looking to hear from other BAG members on this point. Risker (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a BAG member, but I've become semi-regular in the area. I too have concerns with kicking this to BRFA.
- To put it bluntly, BAG dosen't do a good job anticipating community objections to tasks and dosen't do a good job of handling objections to bots when the objections are are not code based. Both of these are on display with the Shared IP archive saga. Most BRFAs involve the user filling out a form, then a BAG member asking a question or two, then granting a trial period, then granting approval if the trial goes smoothly. Rarely do more than two or three BAG members ever comment on a single request, and rarely do they bring bot proposals to community attention for discussion.
- This isn't to say that the process dosen't work perfectly fine 95% of the time, as most of the people that come to BRFA (both coders and commenters) know what they're talking about, the tasks are rarely controversial, and there's rarely a compelling reason to go over someone's tasks in painstaking detail so long as nothing breaks during the trial. That being said, BRFA's infrastructure just isn't set up to handle hot potatos. BRFA isn't at its core a community consensus based process, it's an expert vetting process. There's never been a question that Betacommand knows what he's doing when it comes to coding, he's an expert in that. The issue has more to do with the tasks themselves, and BRFA is the wrong place for deciding if a task is going to make waves or go off without a hitch. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Procedure for determining and consequences for breaking remedy 6?
Like, say, running unauthorized tasks with the bot? Given the years of drama surrounding this, ArbCom needs to spell out the enforcement procedure, if any. And most importantly, who is authorized to make this determination: ArbCom, BAG, or any "uninvolved" admin? And what are the appeal venues? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is item 3.4.1 on the proposed decision. Normally, violations are reported to WP:AE and a clerk makes a decision. BAG would not be responsible for enforcement on that page. Remedy 6 says "clearly delineated tasks specifically authorized by the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group" so the clerk would need to determine whether the task being performed was clearly delineated in an approved bot request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that, but it's vague: "user may be blocked". By whom? The triple venue for appeals specified there (ANI/AE/ArbCom) is too unstructured to be practical. If past history is a predictor, we can expect drama over that too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- ANI is not a venue for appeals for arbitration sanctions. That would be the main benefit of the arbcom outcome, if they continue go with the current trend in voting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the mention of WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- ANI is not a venue for appeals for arbitration sanctions. That would be the main benefit of the arbcom outcome, if they continue go with the current trend in voting. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that, but it's vague: "user may be blocked". By whom? The triple venue for appeals specified there (ANI/AE/ArbCom) is too unstructured to be practical. If past history is a predictor, we can expect drama over that too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Quality of Interaction with Other Editors (implicit remedy, no supporting finding)
The main remedy currently passing almost passing is 6 (3.3.6 Betacommand limited to BAG approved tasks). There is also a proposal to vacate current sanctions. (3.1.6 Community sanctions vacated). Most of the tangle of previous sanctions would be superseded by 3.3.6.
However, the interaction sanctions stand apart; they would be voided, and not replaced or superseded. There is no finding currently proposed that identifies an improvement in the quality of Beta's interactions with other editors, nor am I aware of evidence that would support such a finding. Arbitrator AGK, above, offered that the interaction problems occurred around scripts, not bots. Arbitrator Silk Tork, two comments further down, offered above that he would prefer look at only current evidence from a bot account. Neither reason adequately supports an affirmative action to void interaction restrictions.
A remedy addressing the quality of Beta's interactions with other editors needs to be crafted (or continued). If, on the other hand, the arbitrators choose to eliminate sanctions related to Beta's interactions with other editors, they should do so explicitly by remedy, and such remedy should be supported by findings of fact. Jd2718 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- At 8 support votes, remedy 6 is not currently passing (it requires 9 to do so). --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is it 8 support votes? JClemens has !voted both in support and opposition, so whether he is counted as a support seems to me to be an open question. EdChem (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- When an arb goofs up, it's probably best to read their most current vote as reflecting their current feelings on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Should I take this to mean "Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my !votes on that remedy, which I have now clarified"? I certainly don't expect arbitrators never to make an error in voting, nor to be prevented from altering their view after further reflection, but for editors or ArbClerks to guess as to the intended meaning rather than getting clarification seems unwise to me. Regards, EdChem (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- When an arb goofs up, it's probably best to read their most current vote as reflecting their current feelings on the matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is it 8 support votes? JClemens has !voted both in support and opposition, so whether he is counted as a support seems to me to be an open question. EdChem (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
For ease of reference: Lightbot's final block discussion
Since this was another editor restricted to use automation only in BAG-approved cases (and was mentioned by Kirill), the discussion surrounding the final block should be informative here: [41] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's interesting. The bot was blocked for doing what it was agreed it should do, and the block has never been overturned? Does anyone know why? Am I missing something? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved with that, but it seems like the issue is that the bot was making edits such as [42] [43] where the change described in the BRFA had already been made, and the bot's change was instead to use the {{convert}} template even though the right conversions were already present. Since the BRFA did not describe adding this template in cases where the conversions were already present, and since mass-converting MOS-compliant articles to use templates like that is generally contentious, someone blocked the bot. One BAG member said that he understood the purpose of the BRFA was that the bot would add the convert template, but enough other people did not see it that way that the bot remained blocked. If the goal really was to use {{convert}} on all articles with units, replacing hard-coded conversions, this needed to be discussed much more explicitly, probably on a village pump, as it would affect such a large number of articles. Lightmouse has been inactive since October, and thus has not pursued the matter further. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The blocking admin has provided the following link on his talk page, which seems to confirm what CBM inferred. [44] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- That discussion is also interesting because Lightbot was assuming that in the case of an existing manual conversion the first of the values is the correct one, and was "fixing" the other to match. It has some similarity with the issue where Δ had decided that the ISBN was the correct piece of information in a citation, and was regenerating the entire citation based on a Google books lookup of that number. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved with that, but it seems like the issue is that the bot was making edits such as [42] [43] where the change described in the BRFA had already been made, and the bot's change was instead to use the {{convert}} template even though the right conversions were already present. Since the BRFA did not describe adding this template in cases where the conversions were already present, and since mass-converting MOS-compliant articles to use templates like that is generally contentious, someone blocked the bot. One BAG member said that he understood the purpose of the BRFA was that the bot would add the convert template, but enough other people did not see it that way that the bot remained blocked. If the goal really was to use {{convert}} on all articles with units, replacing hard-coded conversions, this needed to be discussed much more explicitly, probably on a village pump, as it would affect such a large number of articles. Lightmouse has been inactive since October, and thus has not pursued the matter further. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Remedy 7
I am afraid Remedy 7 ("Betacommmand restricted") will leave us in essentially the same position.
- It is not possible to tell whether automated methods are used to make any particular edit.
- We saw when this case opened that editors can filibuster enforcement of the existing sanction by claiming that a group of edits were not "similar", and Δ has demonstrated that he is not inclined to follow these sorts of sanctions voluntarily.
- Regardless of the outcome of this case, even under the tightest sanctions, Δ would be able to generate lists of articles and post them on other websites for editors to look at. So the part of #7 which permits him to do this is only allowing him to do something that we can't prevent.
There is a small advantage that #7 would be enforced at AE instead of ANI, but overall #7 seems like a very small tweak to the existing sanctions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, creating such lists could also be used to deal with Delta's communication problems. If we implement something along the lines of Remedy 6, then Delta could be put on a 0RR or 1RR restriction. Then he could run a bot to check on reversions of his bot edits and then post them on some file which others can deal with. You can also imagine a deadline system where Delta is allowed to revert the unreverted items that are still on the list after a week. The community would then have a week (or whatever other time frame is seen to be appropriate) to either declare the bot edits to be wrongly reverted or to be correctly reverted and then remove such items from the list. Count Iblis (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any sanction that requires other people to continually monitor Δ's edits and revert them after they happen is doomed from the beginning. One of the main problems with Δ's editing is that he does not have the judgment required to go about doing bot tasks without significant prior review; that problem dates all the way from BetacommandBot to this arbitration case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid this remedy is an invitation to a festival of wiki-lawyering and perhaps WP:TAGTEAMing. Besides not addressing the issue that was the proximate cause of this arbitration (no consensus on what pattern or similar edits means), what does "both Betacommand and the subsequent user will share editorial responsibility for the edits made in this fashion" mean in practice? If the edits prove controversial in the community, are both editors going to be blocked? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do not see any reason to be afraid. It's a reasonable remedy that addresses the valid concerns raised by all participants and the best interests of Wikipedia overall. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's leaving us where we started or perhaps slightly worse in therms of the complexity and practicality of the restrictions. So, yeah, drama lovers have nothing to fear indeed. You could start selling popcorn. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your contentions. I just do not ascribe to them. While we debate if the glass is half empty or half full, ArbCom is satisfied that in any regard the glass is not empty. I applaud such insight. My76Strat (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- But is that what this remedy is saying? I read it as "you thought those were complex and impractical restrictions?! we double that!" If the intent was to vacate the remedies by making them impossible to parse or apply, then this remedy surely is successful. I don't want to speculate why this comes from the Arbitrator who drafted the decision in the Betacommand 2 case. Sorry if I sound too cynical to you. You may want to read what your friend Hammersoft wrote about ArbCom Failure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't ascribe any friends to me here. I have no friends here. Got it? Even Δ. Sometimes people agree with me and I with them. That doesn't equal 'friend'. I value the freedom of being able to say what I want without regards to whose emotions I'm trampling on. It also means I don't have to keep track of whose happy back pocket I'm in. In being cynical, I happen to agree with you, most especially about some of the astonishing absurdities this case has brought. For example, Remedy 1.7, 6-0 in support so far of superseding the community sanctions, without any consensus existing on what the replacement sanctions will be. In total, ArbCom's behavior in this case reminds me of a bunch of Golgafrinchans not being able to invent the wheel because they can't decide what color it should be. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite sure you understand what 1.7 says. It basically says that the restrictions imposed by the community were inadequate and/or inadequately phrased and ArbCom will determine what his restrictions should be. That they haven't decided on what those restrictions (if any) are, it doesn't mean that the first part of the statement isn't true. Indeed, the restrictions have led to problems since they were phrased in such a nebulous manner. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand it perfectly, and that you feel I don't. If 1.7 passed with nothing else passing, then there would be no sanctions in place. Right now, no new restrictions are passing. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hammer, I don't know about those goldfinches (never read the book), but if you're saying that ArbCom is about to deliver us to the worst of all possible worlds, I agree wholeheartedly. I at least had some understanding of what the previous community sanctions really meant (with respect for your own arguments about "patterns", to me it was pretty clear from a common-sense non-semantic standpoint). I can't really make head or tail of the wording in remedy 7 - "repetitive" edits? The gist seems to be to transfer the whole argument over to AE, where Arbs repeatedly decry the lack of admins willing to participate, with absolutely no further guidance other than that something or other is prohibited. Why can't we just have X many articles/day, Y many reverts/article, Z many (existing) bots? Those goldfinches are models of clarity by comparison. Franamax (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- But is that what this remedy is saying? I read it as "you thought those were complex and impractical restrictions?! we double that!" If the intent was to vacate the remedies by making them impossible to parse or apply, then this remedy surely is successful. I don't want to speculate why this comes from the Arbitrator who drafted the decision in the Betacommand 2 case. Sorry if I sound too cynical to you. You may want to read what your friend Hammersoft wrote about ArbCom Failure. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your contentions. I just do not ascribe to them. While we debate if the glass is half empty or half full, ArbCom is satisfied that in any regard the glass is not empty. I applaud such insight. My76Strat (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's leaving us where we started or perhaps slightly worse in therms of the complexity and practicality of the restrictions. So, yeah, drama lovers have nothing to fear indeed. You could start selling popcorn. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The purpose and intent of proposed remedy 7 is just what I said in my support comment when I proposed it: I think that if Betacommand channels his automated or repeated edits into a list of edits that can be reviewed and implemented by another user, we keep the best of his contributions (identification of pages with problems and a method of addressing the problems) while eliminating the big problems that people have with his contributions (errors and occasional mis-prioritization of tasks). Proposed copyedits to address any perceived ambiguities in the wording or to simplify the interpretation of the remedy would be most welcome here.
I appreciate all the comments in this section (and everywhere else) but I must say I am puzzled by ASCIIn2Bme's remarks, including that "I don't want to speculate why this comes from the Arbitrator who drafted the decision in the Betacommand 2 case." Anyone is free to disagree with any proposal I make or even to try to convince me to modify or withdraw it; following such comments is part of my job. But if the implication is meant to be that I am intentionally trying to create confusion or to stoke drama rather than work toward a fair and productive solution to the case, that is highly offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- After straining to find reasonable assumptions of good faith, I am inclined to believe it was framed to offend. I share a measure of your disdain and request ASCIIn2Bme to retract the statement, or explain the intent. Regarding the proposal, I do wish ArbCom would evaluate if and how a mentor could facilitate implementation and ultimately the full remediation of Betacommand, which I hold to mean released from all restrictions. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- NYB I speak only for myself, and I have no doubt of your good faith. I personally am not sure exactly what to do when this stuff is not going through a workshop phase first. Where and how are we supposed to comment? I asked specific questions of another Arb about this and the response to my questions was "Thanks for your comments". It's hard to tell whether the AC actually cares what other people have to say. Franamax (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I echo and concur with you Franamax. Further, I think the way this entire case has been handled has been exceptionally poor. Just one of the many serious problems with this case is at Proposed FoF 6.1. This FoF isn't based on any discussion on the evidence or workshop pages. There's been no opportunity for anyone, much less Δ, to review the supposed evidence and have an opportunity to rebut. Instead, it's just defacto; ArbCom says its true so it must be true. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Newyorkbrad felt attacked, but if I were to speculate about his reasons for posting this remedy, it would certainly not include deliberately causing confusion. If I understood the history of the community restrictions following the Betacommand 2 case, they arose because that case did not address the matter effectively. ¶ Alas, the subsection of the community that usually deals with Δ can't agree about the meaning of soup. Whether this happens because it involves many programmers instead of LL.D.s, again I don't want to speculate. Nevertheless, I think there is rough consensus in the community that the restrictions need to be simplified. I don't think remedy 7 manages to do this, rather the opposite, so I expressed my frustration in that regard, perhaps not in the best way. Regards, ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's definitely tomato soup, it just has certain quantities of rice, chicken, lentils, cucumbers and ox-tongue in it. I've proposed a few really seriously late principles and specific remedies in my workshop section. Can any of those be worked with, or moved forward as a body? Franamax (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
In regards to Franamax's comment on the Arb who said "Thanks for your comments"; I think that must be me. I had proposed a clean start option, and had received a number of comments for that, mostly critical of the proposal, and at the way it was done. Franamax left a message for me, which I took to be a rhetorical question designed to make me reflect on my action, and not intended to be fully answered. I took the message in the same spirit as the other comments I had received, and as part of my learning curve, and I thanked Franamax. As regards answering the question why I "didn't place those ideas first at the /Workshop page?" The idea had been raised in a few places before I formally put it on the Proposed Decision page, including Δ's talkpage, this talkpage, and the Workshop page. I felt the proposal was worth serious consideration as I believed it was a viable solution (still do). I feel that all viable proposals are worth considering, even if rejected, as the reasons for rejection can be helpful to a fuller understanding of the issues, even if only to answer the question - "Why wasn't XYZ considered?". As for why the PD page rather than the Workshop page for the formal wording of the proposal. I think that was mainly because the PD page had been opened, and because other proposals had already been directly placed on there rather than being workshopped first. I hope that clarifies matters, but if not, I'm prepared to expand. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- SilkTork, please don't be discouraged by any responses that this specific proposal has generated or will generate. Proposing new ideas and seeing how they are regarded by ArbCom is good, and doing it publicly is excellent. Transparent decision making is an area that ArbCom can improve, and actually examining different proposals on-wiki I believe engenders confidence in the arbitrators and helps with portraying a group of individuals rather than a single-minded 'iceburg' (90% of which is below the surface, hidden from view and mysterious). EdChem (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- SilkTork, I noticed your edit here on my watchlist earlier, sorry I didn't read it 'til now, I'm symptomatic I suppose of the general sense of exhaustion settling over this case. Yes, I was referring to you, yes I was rather unsettled by your utalk response, no, they weren't rhetorical questions - I was genuinely interested in your specific thoughts, especially in light of your answer to a Q in the election where you had mentioned reserving even the workshop page for arbitrators. In the case of the clean-start proposal, I think that would have been better as formally workshopped, where we could have kicked the crap out of the idea and saved your fellow arbs the effort (the workshop proposal you link is struck through). :) I do agree with EdChem that at least arb discussion on the PD page is vastly preferable to a pre-formed solution emerging from a private arb:wiki. I'd still prefer to see more detailed proposals going to the workshop first, as I've belatedly tried to do. (Also noting RD's request for more details there, which yeah, maybe I'll try that) I was more expressing frustration than dissing you in particular, though I would be interested in seeing an expanded answer to my Q's at a place and time of your convenience. Franamax (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- @SilkTork I agree with EdChem. It hadn't occurred to me that you might be discouraged about anything. To my eyes you have catapulted to the uppermost of my regards. I would also hope, and like to believe, that you proposed clean start in earnest. A generic appeal, to measure an intangible would be disingenuous; folly in fact. I interpreted the sum of your posts on the subject to be sincere. If you had to write the dissenting opinion, (re clean start) I would love to read it.
- I have commented regarding clean start several times. And have levied, that I believe the authentic value of clean start has diminished, for synthesis. The majority, who opposed clean start, stated an implicit correlation to external blame; practically akin to exoneration. Reading the policy, no such indication is apparent. I must ask, how is Wikipedia better served by such a contrary light shed upon our governing instruments? In this place, we ought to see our policies in force; enforced unmolested! So where did the prevailing notion gain prominence? Certainly not some consensus I hope! For here, again, we ought to see, consensus subordinate to policy; for it is!
- The letter of clean start and the spirit of its intent is well suited for application in this case. So now I have asked a third time. I posted evidence with diffs highlighting this issue. I find it rather telling. I posted motions, nothing really said or done. I thought I'd see a yes or no, in answer. Some participants regularly see one or two Arb comments to their workshop efforts. Others, see little, or none. As charges were laid against Δ for inadequate edit summaries, I asked if certain other edit summaries would also be problematic; to no answer, nothing. So I have also felt ignored in this case, and the other one for that matter.
- I find this question, the reconciliation of policy with the rationale for oppose, to be central to Wikipedia's main dysfunctional elements. It's hard to find many who will even consider that consensus has its place. For if it reigns here, and can not be reined, here; I have a lot to consider. My76Strat (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Small tweak to #6 for self-reverts
For #6, one small tweak is to allow Δ to revert his own edits or edits by one of his bots in any namespace. During the testing phase of bot development, edits must occasionally be reverted, and there is no reason the sanction should prevent him from doing that while it allows him to develop bots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that is covered under "or to make edits necessary to file and participate in his own Bot Request for Approvals." SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would read the quoted passage as ony giving him permission to post on the BRFA pages, not to mainspace. The first sentence of #6 says he cannot edit mainspace at all, while the second sentence goes on to further restrict what edits he can make to other namespaces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Betacommand vs. Δ
The PD refers to Δ by his former username (except in FoF1). This seems to be rather unusual since the usual practice is to use the current username and not a previous one (see, e.g., the Abortion case in which User:Anythingyouwant is referred to as such and not by his previous username Ferrylodge, even though he had a previous arbcom case under that name.) It might be a good idea to either add a sentence in the FoF like "As Δ is best known under his previous username, we will refer to him as Betacommand in the remainder of this decision for ease of reference" or replace all the "Betacommand" with "Δ". T. Canens (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've proposed reverting him to Betacommand by remedy. That should simplify things throughout the entire project. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- ? Do you also plan on forcing every non-alphanumeric character username? Such names are allowed under policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually arbcom does not have the authority to forcibly rename me. I have a global account which I use on multiple projects. Arbcom's authority only extends to en.wiki. The way SUL functions you cannot use different names under the same account. Until that happens arbcom cannot force a rename as it affects other projects where they are 1/696 projects which I have an account on. ΔT The only constant 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- They could make you an offer you can't refuse. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Theoretically, they can ban you until you agree to a rename...though that strikes me as complete overkill. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Would someone please explain why typing Δ's name (7 characters, code without spaces = & Delta ;) is such an onerous burden? His chosen username is shorter to type than many of the arbitrators but no one is proposing forcing them into "simpler" names. Further, it is impolite in my view to insist on using someone's former name. You wouldn't (I hope) refer to a trans woman by her birth name, nor to a divorced woman who chose to revert to her maiden name by her married name. Admittedly courtesy in the online world isn't the same as in face-to-face interactions but I think the general principle of a right to self-identify extends to respecting an editor's choice of username. Now I recognise that there were good reasons to use the Betacommand name in labelling this case as it follows the earlier ones but surely we can respect Δ sufficiently to refer to him by the name he has selected.
If ArbCom does choose to pass a remedy forcing a name change - and forcing an editor back to a name surrounded by controversy - I would like to see a principle, grounded in extant policy, passed that provides authority for this action. Aside from the points that Δ has made about SUL and Hammersoft has made about the explicit policy allowance for non-alphanumeric names, this has the potential to be seen as another example of ArbCom overreaching its mandate and authority, and for little gain that I can see. EdChem (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, he provides no shortcuts on his user page, and not everyone is a HTML guru. In fact, most people were using the template {{BCD}} to represent him. I've added the alternative to that template's documentation and to WP:UUN. (And some are still surprised how it works [45] ) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The substance of policy is beyond the purview of ArbCom - that is, ArbCom must follow policy, in this case WP:USERNAME#Usernames with non-Latin characters, not change it. Accordingly, this proposal is beyond ArbCom's authority. While I have no opinion on the case as a whole, this particular proposal is itself a WP:POINT violation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the overall case name, I gather this was chosen because of the earlier cases prior to assuming the Δ username. Otherwise, while I don't feel quite as strongly about this as Philosopher, I've opposed the remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to respond Jclemens' 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC) comment [46]. Jclemens might not like the idea that Δ changed his name. But, the name change was reviewed by ArbCom in a request for clarification, and was allowed to remain. Please see discussion. I also concur with others above that ArbCom, should it somehow pass this "remedy", will be acting in violation of policy and outside of their remit as granted by the community. Further, Δ has never made any secret of the connection between the accounts, and in his very first two edits under the new username, he redirected his old user page [47] and talk page [48] to his new account. He has been totally transparent about the move, and has never edited from Betacommand since the move [49]. What "problem" is this "remedy" seeking to solve? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There is the matter of the fact that Betacommand started editing under Δ in order to circumvent a block. In my opinion, this has less to do with "triangle guy" and the name he chooses, and more to do with the fact that he violated another policy in order to circumvent his block. Forcing him to go back to his old name is certainly reasonable in that light, but I think it is complete bull$#!t to make him change it just because it is hard to type. Our policy explicitly allows that. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Circumvent a block? The Betacommand account was abandoned on 11 July 2010. That account was used to edit the very day he switched to the new Δ account. The last time the Betacommand account had been blocked prior to it being abandoned was 9 August 2009 [50], 11 months prior. I fail to see any block evasion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please look at the block log. The last time Betacommand was indefinitely blocked was 13 July 2009. That block was lifted less than four hours later. At the time that the Betacommand account was abandoned (a year after that last indefinite block had been lifted), no block was in effect nor had been in effect for 11 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A queue is forming...
Just a note that a current AN/I thread (<permalink to archive>) is somewhat stalled in anticipation of a decision here. I'll draw attention to my proposed principle on automated/high-speed/scripted editing - I believe this should be held to a much higher standard. Even in normal course editing and review, it's difficult to check over another's edits when many changes are made at one time. When even one error is finally sorted out from the diff, this is a matter for concern and becomes subject to blanket reversion. When there are hundreds of these edits occurring in a short period of time, it becomes simply overwhelming to maintain any standard of quality. To me, the question arises why the humans who are working hard here should be expected to just give up and accept whatever the high-speed editors decide is the right thing to do, even when it's wrong. Franamax (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- And in a blink of an eye Wikipedia became sentient. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Franamax I disagree in part with you conclusion. You and no other is expected to give up, retreat, or succumb in any way. It's BRD, the way we collaborate, and you can revert, and discuss, and see your preference remain in the article's of your interest and concern. Are you suggesting that Δ should never be allowed to be the bold editor in BRD? As an aside, while you express almost a loathsome disgust for automated edits, high speed edits, High-speed editors and beyond, I assure you, without such capability, without so many people doing it, Wikipedia could not succeed! It absolutely could not be possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, WP:MEATBOT was policy, but just like WP:CIVIL, it's hardly ever enforced. Open editing being the foundation of Wikipedia everyone is free to consume magawats (and megabucks) changing all instances of {{Reflist}} to {{reflist}} and then back, per BRD, or else Wikipedia will fail its mission. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Franamax may not have explicitly said it, so I will. No, Δ should not be allowed to be the bold editor in WP:BRD. He has proven himself to be disruptive over a long period of time and can't follow policy, arbcom decisions, or community-based sanctions. Enough is enough. When does the madness end?
- I think he should be banned for a significant period of time (that's up to ArbCom to decide, but I will accept any decision). Likewise, if he is not given a ban, but further editing restrictions, those restrictions should be as clear as possible and it should be made 100% crystal clear that, should Δ violate Term X, he will be given a Y punishment for a violation of said infraction (much like violating WP:3RR automatically leads to a block).
- I also agree with Franamax's sentiment that this is dragging on too long. A decision needs to be made. Perhaps an alternately phrased restriction/block/ban is in order? Buffs (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The claim that Δ can not follow ArbCom decisions is provably false. 18 July 2011 ArbCom motion forbade Δ from making edits enforcing the WP:NFCC policy. Since that time, Δ has made more than 5000 edits without being appropriately blocked for violating that motion. Six months and more than 5000 edits. I wonder, how many edits and how much time has to elapse before he proves himself capable of abiding by an ArbCom motion? What about community sanctions? Remember the edit throttle? No blocks for that since May of 2011; that's eight months and more than 12,000 edits. Indeed, when is enough enough? I do agree that any new sanctions must be crystal clear; we got into this current mess is because "the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community" [51]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I documented in my evidence, Δ has been skirting right at the edge of the NFCC ban; there is no sign he has taken the spirit of that restriction to heart. He violated the speed restriction on June 20 and 27; July 2,7, 8 and 14; and September 2, 3, and 17. It may be true that he was not blocked for that since May, but he was still violating it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I've noted to you before, complaining about him operating within the NFCC restrictions is a non-starter. Either he's complying, or he's not; not some nebulous idea of yours that he's violating because he's doing some arbitrarily determined "skirting" near it. Going backwards on the edit throttle, 17 September he was over it by a whopping 4 edits, September 3rd just 1, September 2 just 1, July 14 by 1, July 8 by 3, July 7 by 2. July 2nd is the only serious violation. It's obvious that since then, across 7000 edits and near 7 months, he has been trying like the dickens to comply. But, that's not good enough, is it? Tell you what; you try an edit within that standard, even for just a little while. See how successful you are. Do you NEVER exceed the speed limit in real life, even by 1 mph? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I rightfully, and correctly, pointed out he is complying. You complain he's in violation of the restrictions because he's nebulously defined "skirting" close to violating. Please define, in crystal clear terms, this nebulous area. Otherwise, there's no way to rebut your comments. Please answer the question; have you never violated the speed limit, even by 1 mph? As to posting tasks, as was proven this past fall whether he posts or doesn't post he'll be taken to task for it. Even the insertion/removal of a whitespace was deemed to be a "pattern" that required "approval" (which would never be granted). That whole fracas was proof the community is utterly incapable of handling this issue, which is why we are here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- "...then you argue it is OK that he has routinely flouted the speed restriction"
- Any evidence for this other than the evidence by 69.149.249.38? The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Evidence#Replies by Toshio Yamaguchi regarding evidence presented by 69.149.249.38 shows that there is no uniform interpretation of the restriction text by the community. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any time Δ makes 41 or more edits in a 10 minute period, he has averaged more than 4 edits per minute over a 10 minute period of time. It is easy to create a list of 10-minute periods in which Δ made more than 40 edits, because this just requires scanning all his edits and counting how many occur in each 10 minute period. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- The claim that Δ can not follow ArbCom decisions is provably false. 18 July 2011 ArbCom motion forbade Δ from making edits enforcing the WP:NFCC policy. Since that time, Δ has made more than 5000 edits without being appropriately blocked for violating that motion. Six months and more than 5000 edits. I wonder, how many edits and how much time has to elapse before he proves himself capable of abiding by an ArbCom motion? What about community sanctions? Remember the edit throttle? No blocks for that since May of 2011; that's eight months and more than 12,000 edits. Indeed, when is enough enough? I do agree that any new sanctions must be crystal clear; we got into this current mess is because "the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community" [51]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, WP:MEATBOT was policy, but just like WP:CIVIL, it's hardly ever enforced. Open editing being the foundation of Wikipedia everyone is free to consume magawats (and megabucks) changing all instances of {{Reflist}} to {{reflist}} and then back, per BRD, or else Wikipedia will fail its mission. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Franamax I disagree in part with you conclusion. You and no other is expected to give up, retreat, or succumb in any way. It's BRD, the way we collaborate, and you can revert, and discuss, and see your preference remain in the article's of your interest and concern. Are you suggesting that Δ should never be allowed to be the bold editor in BRD? As an aside, while you express almost a loathsome disgust for automated edits, high speed edits, High-speed editors and beyond, I assure you, without such capability, without so many people doing it, Wikipedia could not succeed! It absolutely could not be possible. My76Strat (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)