Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

1101:(Betacommand may be able to provide a more up-to-date link - the latest I heard is that he plans to start this phase in April) - it would be good to avoid drama around implementation of that phase of operations. In addition though, I am concerned that there will be a big push from certain quarters, after the WMF deadline passes on 23 March 2008, to change the deletion criteria and get rid of a lot of non-free images that some people don't think should be on Knowledge (XXG). Those people are perfectly entitled to do that, but I don't want to see such changes strong-armed through under the banner of "enforcing the WMF resolution", at least not without proper community discussion. And that means a long, careful discussion over several weeks, with a clear way to end the discussion and move forward. Even though people say this is no longer possible give the size of Knowledge (XXG), I don't think people or bots should be forcing the pace on anything as sensitive as this, especially given the lessons of what happened over the past year. It is still unclear how much damage the implementation of this policy has done to the community. 904:) does on non-free images. I have, however, consistently criticised the way in which this work has been done, and made criticisms on other matters, and supported criticisms made by others when I thought they were valid. This has been difficult for several reasons: (1) Some people attack Betacommand and his work due to failure to understand our policy - this creates a lot of background noise. (2) Some people uncritically support Betacommand and his work and attack his critics - this too adds to the background noise. (3) Those that fall between these two extremes are not all saying the same thing at the same time (there is a wide spectrum of opinion and a large number of issues). This results in long, heated discussions, and very little progress. An added distraction is Betacommand's incivility in response to criticism, and his disruption in other areas, which, when it involves his bot, proves (or did prove) difficult to separate from his non-free image work. 1726:, it shouldn't be allowed to operate at all. I hope the arbitrators can see the fallacy in that argument. People have requested to be opted out, and up until Beta's recent changes, he allowed anyone to request opting out, as long as they had a valid reason (something beyond "it's annoying me"). The recent opt-out system he created has been met with resistance because it tries to circumvent policy or something like that. It's VOLUNTARY. As for the blocks, well, it feels to me that most of the blocks are by admins who really don't understand what the problem is and are so anxious to block such a high-profile bot as this and gain access to the elite club of admins against BCBot that they don't consider the reasons for blocking and they don't attempt to get consensus for a block. There have been blocks of this bot over a single error, where my bot, which is much less well known, has made similar errors without being blocked. 1738:. Arbitrators may understand the feeling of frustration when one is trying to volunteer with Knowledge (XXG) and is met with resistance, uncivil comments, personal attacks, and in general the immaturity of the community. While there are true newbies who do not understand policy and need to be helped, our ability to do so is being diminished by assaults by those who refuse to understand policy, as demonstrated in the Abu bahali case mentioned by NYB in his comments below. While arbitration will help in this manner, the best solution would most likely be one which is implemented quickly. Now that the Arbitration Committee has agreed to take on this case, I hope they do so in a prompt manner and take into account the feelings I have expressed in this last paragraph along with the policy side of the matter. -- 1308:

evidence against betacommand is more than covered above, if arbcom don't choose to proceed on the basis of the above diffs, then frankly they are not worth the web page they written on. It is laughable that the creation of a separate but entirely subordinate bot is being heralded as a start to solve all the problems, that pathetic attitude is merely indicative of the entire problem, betacommand is untouchable on wikpedia, his hobby programming is more important than any other policy, and it is frankly not worth questioning any aspect of his existence, its pointless, editors must accept he is untouchable, lest you be vandalised or banned for the most ridiculous of reasons, or, as have some very experienced yet completely pissed off admins have already done, leave. A total joke.

1336:. The allowance of the wars with bcb has only cemented this idea in certain supporters eyes, who clearly don't understand the policy or the bot. Finally, I am amazed given the named participants above that this issue is still being attributed to just angry newbies who don't understand why their images have been tagged. It is not, bcb and his bot, and the wider compliance process he is a part of (and part of this is he must accept that as bcb owner that he is a part of a system, not a just lone editor) can be massively improved, but not if he remains an intransigent cog in the system, given massive leeway because he can't differentiate between angry repsonses from newbies and feedback from other editors. 1982:

criteria. This is an essential task and also one of the most thankless in the entire project, because contributors who have dedicated volunteer time to locating and uploading an image to accompany an article are often frustrated or offended to receive a notice that they have violated our intellectual-property policy or, worse, when their images are deleted. The endless disputes over proper interpretation and application of the policies complicate the task still further, as does the fact that there are so many images to be addressed that the notifications must often be provided via bot-delivered templates rather than individually. As I have said in the past,

736:. The policy was made after a board resolution on March 23 2007 gave a year to fix non-free media. Unfortunately, the communication between Betacommand and users who wholeheatedly agree with these activities and users who are opposed to it has been less than stellar. This is a very heated conflict, as Betacommand is constantly subject to abuse and trolling, and he feels a bit alienated by this. I urge the Abritration Committee to look at the behaviour of users in this debate, possibly rule on the application on the policy, and basically, help resolve this conflict over fair use policy and the resulting incivility and mess that has ensued with it. 1968:

utilization of copyrighted material where the use constitutes "fair use." Determining what constitutes fair use of a given image in a given context can be a complex question of intellectual property law (I am not expressing any legal opinions in these comments). Partly for potential liability reasons, partly for practical reasons, and partly for philosophical reasons, English Knowledge (XXG) has placed strict limits on when fair-use media may be used and requires that certain information be provided in connection with each such use. The body of policy and policy interpretation that has grown up surrounding application of the

1468:, but the underlying problem is that the image-tagging process has been badly designed and badly handled. It appears to have been designed primarily as a technical task, with far too little provision for the huge social impact of attaching deletion warnings to hundreds of thousands of images, such as the ability of the bot operator to withstand the inevitable abuse, and the lack of any visible mechanism to extract from the torrent of reactions any aspects of the process which might benefit from tweaking. The process has also been overly dependent on BC, with several adverse consequences. 1718:

about BetacommandBot when not necessary. In my opinion, the initial speedy approval should have stood because it is a clone of an existing bot. The only legitimate concerns (that did not also apply to BetacommandBot) were those about the bot being a role account, and that is why the approval was pushed through. Perceived attempts at disruption and argument-mongering after the closing resulted in the protection of the approval page. It is not standard practice to protect these, but it isn't every day that a BRFA gets that much negative attention.

1332:

accountable for its failings. I would also like some clarification of this continued idea that BCB for NFC10c is protecting WP from being sued, in his own words and other, he is doing 'good work' or essential work. With regards to the NFCC resolution, bcb 'enforces' a ridiculously small part of the policy, so small as to be redundant, considering it is something a human can check during the necessary human assessment of every fair use claimed image for the 95% of the policy bcb

1997:"Editors who review images uploaded to Knowledge (XXG) and identify those that are missing the necessary information play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain 754:: I personally think that the community isn't making progress; even if it is making some progress, I think there's too much bad-faith, incivility and the zOMG WIKIDRAMA with this. Betacommand has indicated a desire for an arb case for quite a bit now, and many think that an arb case is inevitable. I'd prefer to try to cut all the bad-faith, incivility and zOMG WIKIDRAMA as soon as possible, preferably through the intervention of the arbitration committee. 769:

their own initiative - i.e., without an explanation of why they should. It should be noted, also, that slow and painful progress on the Betacommand/BetacommandBot issues is being made, particularly with the brand new creation of a separate bot account to allow three other users the ability to perform BCBot functions. This wasn't without its own controversy, but it will fade with time and there will be one less BC associated problem to deal with.

1686: 1409: 1288:

RFC or mediation's still ongoing, or mentorship is occurring. But it can be for any kind of communal approach. Arbitration is the last resort, for matters that will not wait, or matters that the community cannot resolve. Plainly, neither of those are the case at this time (March 14). That may or may not change shortly, depending on circumstances. hence not accepting, not declining, but "on hold" watching progress of communal discussion.

2008:

project altogether. He was not the first and will not be the last editor who dedicates himself or herself to image work for a time and then wearies of the never-ending and ill-received task and either drops image work as a user of his or her volunteer time or leaves Knowledge (XXG) altogether. But we also don't know how many contributors, old and new, weary of insufficiently explicated image deletions and warnings and leave us as well.

1248:

possible), and that stress is in turn going to heavily diminish imminently (which seems possible), then that is the reason I would like to hold off a bit to see how it goes. But to avoid doubt, as I have said many times, ultimately incivility norms apply to all, not just some, and chances (when given and used properly) should be given in anticipation of actual visible effort and change, not interminably. Just to clarify the thinking.

2752:

impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. Nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

885:. It is, however, only a very small part of the work needed. It acts as one of several initial barriers (such as using the right copyright tag) that people have to overcome if they want to use non-free images, and those barriers are right and proper for a free-content encyclopedia. Much more work is needed though to bring en-Knowledge (XXG)'s non-free images into line with our Exemption Doctrine Policy ( 1097:), the backlogs of thousands and thousands of tagged images (many of them the older 'legacy' ones) have been cleared (either fixed or deleted). You could say the ongoing discussions resulted from the large tagging runs in the first few months of this year, but I agree, once the drama subsides, things will be better. There is still the proposed BetacommandBot phase 4 - for details of these phases, see 837:

nor is this request for Betacommand. Focusing on the bot, this is premature as the deadline is quickly approaching and much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged. As I recommended to MBisanz when he asked for my opinion on making his request, this would be better postponed until a month after the deadline, if issues continue past that point.

2619:(E) Betacommand has utilized his bot for several tasks not within the scope of prior approvals by the Bot Approvals Group. At least until recently, Betacommand did not segregate his automated image-tagging work from other BetacommandBot tasks, which although not required would have facilitated addressing issues involving one disputed task without interfering with the performance of other tasks. 2555:, this Committee unanimously found that Betacommand, who was then an administrator, had committed a series of errors and misjudgments. Among other concerns were issues relating to the deletion of images, the misuse of automated tools and related communication issues, and incidents of alleged disruption to prove a point. Betacommand was desysopped, but was not otherwise sanctioned. 2436:

and often legal reasons, even though the precise parameters of the policy may be debatable or unclear. Disagreeing with the concerns raised, disputing the interpretation of policy as applied to a specific image, and/or requesting a third opinion are often legitimate responses, but personal attacks on the user raising the question are never appropriate.

2325:

of the behavior of those they are in disputes with. Inappropriate behavior by other editors does not legitimize one's own misconduct, though it may be considered as a mitigating factor in some circumstances. Moreover, users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that conduct.

1856:; others may differ, I personally feel comfortable with deeming that BAG's decision to allow, does indeed make sense. Multiple operators is a non-standard action but those involved seem aware of their responsibilities, the suggestions are reasonable and appropriately minimal, and have considered anti-abuse measures such as logging who uses the bot. 2265:

the performance of administrative tasks. Editors making any or all of these types of contributions are welcome. The project and progress toward our goals are diminished if we drive away or demoralize a good-faith editor who contributes or has the potential to contribute, while complying with Knowledge (XXG) policies, in any or all of these areas.

2371:, key elements of which are policy, stipulates that non-free images and other media may be used only under certain specific circumstances. The source of the image, the provision under which it is used, and the article where it appears must be documented. This policy serves as the project-specific implementation of the Wikimedia Foundation 914:. There are many issues concerning non-free images that need to be discussed and worked on, and the constant discussions around Betacommand and his bot and the other issues involving Betacommand, distract from this other work (and the distractions include this arbitration request and any case if it opens). I've given three examples here. 1499:

time for BCbot to be stood down from NFCC image-tagging, and for BC to concentrate on programming an NFCC bot for others to use. So far as I am aware, all BCbot's other tasks are either duplicates of the functions of other bots or are non-critical. Given the ongoing problems with his bot, the bot flag should be withdrawn from BCbot,

2038:

that appear on their face to have significant substance. And yet, one must recognize and respect the dedication to Knowledge (XXG) of a user who, in spite of constant criticism and in spite of the impact that the committee's prior decision must have had upon him, continues to take the lead in image patrolling work day-in and day-out.

2611:, a page on which users could elect not to receive image-tagging notifications from BetacommandBot. However, in addition to making the legitimate point that users might suffer deletion of their images without prior notification if they opted out of receiving notifications, Betacommand also attempted to impose the unreasonable 2571:

tens of thousands of actually or allegedly non-compliant images and media. In carrying out this role, Betacommand becomes a de facto voice of the project to editors, frequently including new editors, whose images he has challenged. Responses to Betacommand's work from affected editors have ranged from praise and numerous

2604:(C) In February 2008, in admitted retaliation for criticism by another user, Betacommand engaged in harassment and in disruption to make a point by causing BetacommandBot to "spam" about 50 automated image-tagging notices on that user's talkpage even though the images and notices had nothing to do with that user. 2683:

by other editors in this process will be a valuable contribution toward addressing the overall situation reflected in the record of this case. Betacommand is also urged to establish an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing any unnecessary conditions on the right to decline to receive notifications.

3771:

on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to

2479:

11.1) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, bot operators have a heightened responsibility to the community. Bot operators are expected to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bot. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing

2435:

9) An editor whose image's licensing or fair-use status is questioned, or any other editor who believes the image should be retained, should address the matter promptly and civilly. In doing so, it is best to bear in mind that having and adhering to policies in this area is essential for both ethical

1981:

The need to control excessive or unauthorized use of non-free images coupled with the complexities of our use criteria create a need for users to act as "image patrollers" who review uploads and call for the improved documentation and/or deletion of images that they believe are being used outside our

1878:

Issue (9) There has presumably been significant discussion by the community at other venues (meta, MWF-instigated), but I can't myself be sure of this. Carcharoth's concern is that polarization of the debate around Betacommand's bot work may have caused other necessary debates to be sidelined. If so,

1816:

to do with betacommand's civility, which to a large extent arises in the context of being the recipient of, and respondent to, the messages of thwarted uploaders and communication with bot matters, and therefore if removed from that context which he is handling problematically, may well significantly

1733:

Even after endless discussion, many of us, including myself, have become frustrated at users who do not appear to be paying attention to our statements who we feel are wasting our time. We may snap at them, ignore them, or unleash bots against them. Sometimes these are intended as non-disruptive ways

1721:

Now I must address three more things: BetacommandBot, specifically the opt-out arguments and its blocks, the proposed bot, and the attitude of various users throughout this. BetacommandBot performs a necessary task, enforcement of our non-free content policy. No one debates this. People do argue that

1564:

It doesn't stop there. Having used the bot to made some 2,500 unauthorised edits, BC ignored repeated calls from many editors to revert the damage, leaving others to do so manually. The rollback happened only after I blocked BCbot when it resumed work on a different task, without an effort being made

1560:

authorised. We have two possibilities here: either BC ignores his bot's task limits, or he doesn't understand them, and neither is acceptable in the operator of a bot, particularly one running at such speed on the toolserver. BC claimed that done this before without complaint, but failed to offer any

3206:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting

2037:

I am sure that all of us on the committee would infinitely prefer to be voting to restore +sysop to a Betacommand who had addressed all of the issues raised in the committee's prior decision, rather than considering whether to accept another arbitration case against him, one which raises some issues

1579:

Meanwhile, the community is deadlocked between the permacritics of BC/BCbot and the die-hard defenders of the bot ... with the result that no resolution is possible of the genuine problems which do occur, unless arbcom sets some parameters, either by directly placing restraints on BC and BCbot (such

1575:

I have no previous history of dispute with BC, and first engaged him over the removal of redlinked categories. From that episode, it appears to BC accepts no restraints on the use of his bot, and the Bot Approvals Group seems uninterested in taking action about the breaches, and sees itself purely a

1471:

The unpleasantness of the attacks on BC has unsurprisingly led to some well-intentioned editors setting themselves up as his protectors, fending off all criticism. Unfortunately, while there have been some perma-critics of BC, some of the defenders also appear to be defending BC and BCbot regardless

1124:

First, I must say that I find this RfAr to be very premature, and have stated as much on the ANI/B page. BCBot has some important functions he needs to perform in advance of 23 March, and allowing him to finish these functions would have also cooled down the tempers of all parties on all sides. With

836:

I don't think there's much that ArbCom can do at this point. Progress is being made, as has been noted by others. It's slow, but it's happening. The situation, as it currently stands, is still very heated on both sides. Many criticize Betacommand's civility, or lack there of, but it's not one sided,

2682:

2) Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, to seek to have others do so, or to refer users to another appropriate location where their questions can be addressed. Participation

2635:

5) The issues concerning Betacommand's and BetacommandBot's conduct, coupled with overreactions on the part of some other editors and related disputes, have resulted in a series of disputes and disruptions. The level of disruption has been well beyond what a collaborative project should be expected

2570:

3) Since the prior Arbitration decision, Betacommand has continued to edit with an emphasis on bot-programming and image-tagging work. During this period, Betacommand and BetacommandBot have played an extremely significant role in enforcing the non-free content criteria and policies with respect to

2324:

4) Perfection is not expected from editors, it being understood that everyone will occasionally make mistakes or misjudgments. However, an overall record of compliance with site policies and norms is expected, especially from regular contributors. Editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless

2264:

2) Contributors to Knowledge (XXG) may benefit the project by participating in a variety of ways. Good-faith participation is welcome whether it comes in the form of editorial contributions, image contributions, wikignoming, bot and script writing and operation, policy design and implementation, or

2007:

The committee's decision expressed the hope that Abu badali would work with users whose images he challenged in a patient, diplomatic, and collaborative way. Unfortunately, this dedicated user eventually tired of disputes with other editors—whose fault the disputes were is a moot point—and left the

1785:

Switch to accept. Though I still think some of the issues here would be best left alone so that efforts at resolution already underway could continue (such as discussions about different users assuming some of the bot's current functions) the scope here has been steadily expanding over the last few

1331:

I would like some clarification as to what these community actions to resolve the issue apparently are, because all I see is the creation of a separate bot by people friendly to betacommand in order to absolve him of any responsibility of explaining or communicating about the bot, or even worse, be

772:

Anyway - the problems here aren't that amenable to ArbCom intervention. The issues of Betacommand's conduct have been dealt with when extremes are hit, and that will continue to happen. Conduct by other individuals is not really at the ArbCom level. The policy issue is still a problem, but the time

2698:

3) Editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons. Editors are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas, and are

2022:

decision, "an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure." It is equally clear that Betacommand has, in performing his important tasks, sometimes failed to lived up to the ideal job description for an image patroller: there is a fair body of

1498:

The attacks on BC neither excuse nor justify this behaviour. In any other bot editor, this sort of behaviour would long ago have led to an escalating series of blocks, and certainly to the removal of his bot flag. Now that the main task of tagging the backlog of non-free images is complete, it is

1287:

Again, if it is not resolved, and remains a problem, then acceptance would be my choice. But you need to review RFAR a bit to realize that in most cases where actual communal discussion is (or seems to be) taking place, we (often don't/almost never) derail it. That's more usually for example, when

1055:

close to impeding work on these issues, but I think that progress is still slowly being made. In addition, I would urge people reading this to help out with current work on non-free images, and to make productive contributions to discussions on how to move forward after the 23 March 2008 deadline.

1054:

Only if the behaviour issues continue after these issues have been dealt with, or only if the behaviour issues impede discussion and resolution of these issues, will an arbitration case be needed. As can be seen above, I think that the behaviour issues and the resulting community furore are coming

768:

I think there are a number of problems in this area, but I'm not sure which of them can really be addressed through Arbitration. Maxim didn't really make a case for this above - more like, here's a problem, fix it! I'm not sure the remit of ArbCom is broad enough to allow them to take this case on

2714:

4) The community, particularly including users with experience in image compliance and tagging work and those knowledgeable about bots and scripts, is urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the

2027:

ArbCom decision, relating both to Betacommand himself and to his bot, which serves vital functions but often encounters technical issues. A complicating factor is that the same Betacommandbot is often used for non-image-related functions, some of which have been problematic. (I do not address the

1717:

I suppose it's time for me to make a statement, as the request will now certainly be accepted. First, allow me to respond to Nick in regards to my being added to the case. I stand by the protection of that bot approval request, as I am not interested in seeing that forum being swamped by argument

1307:

I waited to see what others would say, partly through interest, partly because of being blocked for daring to question betacommand anyway, and I see from the above comments I have been vindicated. It is obvious from the above evidence that I was not carrying out a campaign against betacommand. My

2280:

3) Knowledge (XXG) users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into

1587:

BCbot performs a huge number of edits, which inevitably magnifies any deficiencies. Unless such a hyperactive bot follows very high standards, the resulting problems are magnified by the sheer scale of the work done, causing massive community disruption. The community has shown itself unable to

2751:

5.1) The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may

2394:

should be tagged to show how they are lacking and the uploader(s) should be notified. Unless the non-compliance with policy is blatant and cannot be fixed, the uploader or any other interested editor should be provided with a reasonable amount of time (generally seven days under current policy)

1729:

The proposed bot is going to be programmed by beta but operated by the members of BAG. There are complaints about it being a role account, however it has been stated that a log will be kept so people know which operator has run a specific task. Since it is only a clone of an existing bot, it is

1644:

This is an unfair bundling of terms. If an editor opts out of receiving notices about NFCC images, why should they be debarred from objecting if the bot does something which they find problematic in relation to categories or wikiproject tags? Those tasks do not usually involve notifications to

977:. There has been consistent uncritical support of Betacommand with incivil attacks on those who criticise him or his work. This is not an exhaustive list, but of the people named (so far) as parties to this case, and if the case is accepted, I would present evidence concerning: the behaviour of 1247:

A fair observation. Bear in mind, I've warned even obviously irredeemable virulent warriors more than once, on their way to a community ban, as well as drawing a firm line on conduct and using tools. If Betacommand's manner is fostered in large part by stress and short fuse generally (which is

1140:

Betacommand's detractors sometimes allow their anger to morph into a "hang 'im high!" mentality that forces Betacommand and his supporters into even more of a "bunker mentality." I've tried to refrain from this, and stick to a "Betacommand needs to be far more civil" line, but I don't know for

1050:

not be NFCC#10c compliant, as the bot does not detect the presence of a rationale, but only the absence of one of the requirements of a rationale - namely the name of the article the image is used in). The community should also be focusing its efforts on what the deadline means (will the image

2459:

are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the

1994:

Last year, an image-patrol specialist usernamed Abu badali was brought before the Arbitration Committee because he was perceived as excessively zealous and confrontational in his dealings with image users. In its decision, the committee adopted a principle that I had proposed on the Workshop:

1967:

Knowledge (XXG) aims to be a 💕, but many images that could be considered essential to explain and illustrate our articles are subject to copyright. Copyright law, by statute since 1979 in the United States and by statute or common law or the equivalent elsewhere in the world, permits limited

1037:

Overall, my position remains that which I have been taking in the last few days (when the idea of an arbitration case has been floating around): not to file a request or open a case at this point in time. I think the community should instead focus its efforts on ensuring that by 23 March 2008

1921:

To clarify my recusal... My barnstars were mainly awarded for the technical part of the job of Betacommand and his bot. That makes my position with regard to non-free content very clear (at least as an editor — which explains my recusal). It is as strict as my position concerning incivility,

1770:

As AGK observes, the community is making progress on its own here. The only areas not being addressed are the history of attacks on Betacommand and the drama-mongering that has been known to take place from time to time when this issue arises, and at this point I don't think there has been a

2410:

8) Editors who review images uploaded to Knowledge (XXG) and identify those that fail to satisfy the NFCC or are missing the necessary documentation play an important role in safeguarding the free nature of the project and avoiding potential legal exposure. However, image-tagging rules are

968:

has largely ground to a halt due to the large volume of images and the distraction of the community discussions over Betacommand and his bot. Though I recognise that it was my own choice to participate in the discussions rather than continue this work, I am sure that others involved in the

2395:

within which to address the problem with the image. If the discrepancies are not resolved after a suitable time period the media may be deleted. Similarly, a non-free image may be removed from a particular page if it does not satisfy the NFCC with respect to its being used on that page.

3817:

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to

1463:

I have some serious criticisms to make of Betacommand (BC), but I first want to stress that I have considerable sympathy for the situation in which BC finds himself, at the receiving end of a barrage of unjustified abuse from editors who object to image tagging. I have written a

1984:"We struggle with the balance between excess nonfree content on the one hand and sometimes excessively technical nonfree-content-policy enforcement on the other hand and excessive backlash against the volunteers who do the thankless job of policy enforcement on the third hand." 2023:

evidence that he does not quite always "remain civil at all times, avoid biting the newcomers, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." These flaws are especially regrettable in light of the findings in last year's

2155:

Switch to accept. The issues of communication and the way the bot does its work are serious enough to go through, and my judgment is that the community is unlikely to resolve them. This does not mean the 23 March deadline is lifted, nor that non-free media can be left alone.

815:

four, I wish you had brought that to my attention ten months ago when that happened, I would have been able to tell you what happened there. but given the amount of time that has passed it is difficult to pin it down. If a user brings an issue to me I gladly quickly address

1129:

Betacommand is chronically incivil. There are many diffs scattered throughout this request showing this, but just in the past couple of days, he's called BrownHairedGirl a "dumbass" and a "dick" and called her good-faith actions "bullshit." This is not out-of-character at

2091:

You know there's no prize for the longest post :) I think most of us are adopting the same strategy here, in that we'd prefer the community's efforts to resolve this dispute to continue, and hopefully succeed, but we'll certainly reconsider if the situation changes.

1734:

to illustrate a point. (That's probably usually the case.) While a little more research and consideration may be desired of the anti-BCBot people, I think it's clear that most of the people listed above as parties have been responsible for brushes with the line of

1152:

trolling of Betacommand, but it's not by any of the parties to this case. It's more of the "YOU'RE A !@#$ @#! JACKASS FOR TAGGING MY PICTURE OF MY GIRLFRIEND!!!! I @#!#$ $ #@! HATE YOU!!!!!" type, and not actually users who have a real, policy-based issue with

1210:

had made, and he called her a "dick" and a "dumbass" among other pleasantries. Those insults are but the tip of the iceberg. If Giano is going to be put on "civility patrol", then perhaps something similar could result from this arbcom for Betacommand, but

3772:

a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate. —

3439:, suspended under the claim that the previous block was improper as the previous blocking editor had been involved in a content dispute), incivility, and falsely presenting essays as policy. (Reasons clarified here, over that in the block log.) — 2047:

I will hold off on voting to accept this case in the hope that progress can be made, per my colleague FT2's posts above, in addressing many of the issues presented. I very much urge that Betacommand—and his critics—will take these points to heart.

2017:

This brings us to the issue of Betacommand and Betacommandbot. It is clear that Betacommand is an energetic and dedicated patroller of images and plays a key role in the bot-assisted enforcement of our image policies. He plays, in the words of the

2719:(A) That the applicable policies and procedures are as straightforward and readily understandable as possible, particularly by new editors and editors new to contributing images as well as by administrators reviewing images tagged for deletion; 947: 3796: 3744: 1572:, and which seems crazy: if blocking a bot which fails to revert unauthorised edits is a "content dispute", then no-one can stop such a bot (because any admin who objects to the unauthorised edits would be labelled as "involved"). 2735:

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

2699:

also welcome to challenge the application of policies and criteria in individual cases, but are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work.

1592:

are testament to the extent to which a significant chunk of the community which strongly suupports the NFCC process has nonetheless lost confidence in BCbot. Everything else has been tried; only arbcom can resolve this mess.

2139:

Hold over for a few days. The community is making progress but has not yet come to an agreement; if agreement is lacking then I incline to acceptance because of the complex of potentially conflicting policies involved.

1004: 2480:

tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

2232: 73: 1922:

especially when it concerns administrators. As clarified by my colleagues here, it is expected from all contributors to understand the role of each other and try to find out ways to work in a better atmosphere. --

2615:

that users signing the opt-out list "also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise." He failed to respond reasonably to widespread criticism that this requirement could not be

355: 731:

This is a reasonably complex case involving numerous issues. Betacommand runs a bot, named BetacommandBot whose tasks include fair-use tagging. Betacommand has used his bot to tag thousands of images per policy,

2419:

who are the foundation of the project's future growth, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged or ensure that those questions are answered by others.

1015:- although at least one member of the bot approval group has said the request should not have been speedily approved, I think this 'forcing something through to avoid trolls' sets an incredibly bad precedent. 88: 1167:

Betacommand refuses to open the code to his bot, keeping anyone with a genuine interest in improving its function from doing so. This (as I see it, anyway) flies in the face of everything that WP is about.

741:

Note 1: I've tried to give a short summary of the conflict here, but I'm not exactly good at writing intros and similar stuff like that, and I'm biased in this case as well, so my summary is probably not

2411:

necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretations, and can be particularly confusing to new editors. Therefore, it is essential that editors performing this valued role should remain

511: 2636:

to accept even in a contentious area such as fair-use policy and image-tagging, and must be brought to an end either via dramatically improved user conduct or via sanctions imposed by this committee.

925: 1817:

diminish or come under control. This is a serious problem and well attested but if it's perhaps going to be made moot (BC will only need to discuss with BAG trusted users) then no need to open a case.

1171:

Well, that's my view of the situation. I think #1, #2, and #6 are the actionable points, in my opinion, and thus (even though it's not the timetable I would have chosen) this case should be accepted.

2598:(A) Betacommand has often been grossly incivil to other editors and has made a series of personal attacks against other editors, generally in the context of disputes concerning operation of his bots. 2528:). In addition to other interests, Betacommand has devoted a substantial portion of his editing, directly and through the bots, to enforcement of the non-free content criteria through image-tagging. 2302: 301: 57:

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at

3472:

guideline page and reverting users over his interpretation of the NFC guideline. Note preceding block (by Arthur Rubin) was undone by blocking admin, prior to latest resumption of edit-warring..

2728:(D) That a clear procedure exists to address disputes that may arise as to the permissibility of a particular image, the labelling of an image, or the use of an image on a particular article; and 2767:

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

69: 62: 2722:(B) That the policies and procedures are enforced in a user-friendly fashion that achieves compliance with policy without unnecessarily offending users or deterring future image contributions; 409: 1175:

For the record, I strongly agree with adding ST47 to the case. His misuse of tools is being snowed under at AN/I by his supporters, and should be at least addressed in any case involving BC.

889:), particularly as most of these criteria can only be assessed by humans, not bots. To that end, using my experience from several months of working in the area of non-free image policy (see 195: 2594:

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

709: 929: 1215:

must be done. Apathetic responses have been tried. They don't work. Action needs to be taken sooner rather than later. I don't advocate a lengthy (or any) block, but an "on-the-record"

3874: 2666:(C) To refrain from any further instances of untoward conduct such as placing numerous image-tag messages on the talkpage of a user who had nothing to do with the images in question. 1356:

reasonable request from a Wikipedian who has been an editor since September 2007. One realy does wonder why it is just apparently acceptable that betacommand does not need to reply?

1531: 1521: 1515: 1013:"Prior discussion with all involved parties, from me, BAG, and the Bcrat were conducted. Bot clones are normally processed fairly quickly. this was forced through to avoid trolls." 1589: 3779: 3348: 960:. My own non-free image work has mainly been on book and magazine covers and historical images, some of which may be shown to be public domain, or soon will be. This work, at 921: 3824:

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an

1098: 2731:(E) That the value that bots and scripts can provide in connection with image processes is maximized while any unnecessary disruption associated with them is minimized. 2544: 2028:

issue of Betacommand's declining to openly release his bot's source code; whether that should be required strikes me as a policy issue beyond the scope of arbitration.)

939: 894: 932:. The responses, despite my attempts to draw the discussions to people's attention, have been much less than the huge amounts of discussion on Betacommand and his bot. 3806:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on

2663:(B) To operate BetacommandBot and other bots only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals by the Bot Approvals Group; and 1206:

users who have never posted anything resembling "attacks" on his page. BHGirl blocked him for demonstrable intransigence to a legitimate request to clean up a mess

1506:

Many of the issues have been well-documented in other submissions, so I will expand only on one aspect of it this stage (more detailed evidence if case accepted).

870:

I apologise for submitting a rather long statement - I hope that the complexity of the issues and (hopefully) the clarity of presentation will justify the length.

943: 920:. I have tried to start discussions in various places about what to do about what changes (if anything) need to take place after the 23 March 2008 deadline. See 2880:

Violation of editing restrictions: "Cleanup" auto/semi-auto edit pattern ran on over 130 articles. Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success

2249:

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

965: 1845:

Issue (6) As with rollback in January, the close was not entirely unreasonable and more discussion is taking place, community seems to be resolving this one,

1580:

as requiring logging and documentation of tasks and setting standards for addressing problems) or by requiring the Bot Approvals Group to proactively enforce

1972:(formerly "fair use criteria") is complex and can be particularly opaque to users who are new to Knowledge (XXG) or new to the process of uploading images. 2348:

or are licensed under a policy-compliant free license. Images and other media that do not meet these requirements may only be used in accordance with the

1202:

With all due respect, claiming that all (or even a majority of) BC's incivility is due to attacks on him is, well, bunk. He's been chronically incivil to

3613: 2875: 2214: 2200: 2185: 2149: 2131: 2057: 1952: 1912: 1891: 1780: 583: 3873:, broadly construed. User:Δ is also formally reminded of the civility restriction and other terms to which they are still subject as a condition of the 2514:) is an experienced contributor who has edited Knowledge (XXG) since November 2005, through his regular user account and through bot accounts including 1722:

it performs too many tasks. This is obviously being worked on, with the new bot approval. Some actually argue that since it can't assess every point of

1445:

With regret, I urge Arbcom to take on this case, to examine at least some of these three related issues, which I list in descending order of priority:

1261:

this request, but three simply are abdicating to the "community" a responsibility that we, as a community, have already tried and failed to resolve.

3048:

reduced to 24 hours due to civility complaint being 3 days stale and brought by a third party, and no clear breach of edits-per-minute restriction.

1835:

that despite formal attempts to resolve the issue, a bot is persistently running an improper task, or serious bugs have persistently not been fixed.

961: 117: 433: 223: 1160:

too personally (the users who leave them are most likely <15 years old and bored), allowing it to color and affect the way he deals with the

1134:

for BC, from my previous interactions/observations of him. I've been accused of various imaginary transgressions by both BC and his supporters.

535: 3810:

and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request

2391: 942:

for what should happen in the future with bots and humans working together more productively. This page was created at about the same time as

1672: 1605: 319: 84: 17: 3161: 2525: 1842:

who are our communal experts. If multiple BAG members feel okay (they will see the code), then I personally would trust their view on this.

1000: 901: 1630:

It allows editors to out of receiving notices from BCbot, and warns editors in return that opting out removes any right to complain about

1820:

Issue (3) Code will be allowed to multiple trusted users on reasonable grounds (to prevent abuse of powerful capabilities) - beyond that

1051:

deletion policy need changing?) and what to do after the deadline (how to continue to ensure compliance of non-free images with policy).

3198: 1269: 1231: 1183: 631: 577: 331: 1660:. That dismissive incivility bodes ill for the arbitrators hopes that the problems can be resolved without arbcom accepting a case. -- 1545:. Unfortunately, BC set the bot to work removing redlinked categories, and when challenged said that this was part of that task (see 349: 337: 3861:, and mindful of the recent and current disputes surrounding this user in many fora, the committee by motion indefinitely topic-bans 2124:

Given that multiple individuals are acting in a way to ensure that the community cannot deal, I feel that instead we need to accept.

3731: 3697: 3661: 3627: 3571: 3500: 3461: 3428: 3385: 3338: 3306: 3275: 3222: 3184: 3147: 2715:

policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The review should attempt to ensure:

2511: 725: 325: 111: 3768: 3286:, and also engaging in an extensive series of image removals (more than 25) without first attempting to gain consensus to do so. 3717: 930:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 28#Appropriate mechanism for enforcement of Foundation Licensing Policy

475: 427: 343: 217: 72:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at 2282: 3124: 3035: 2954: 1082: 529: 3607: 3236: 2922: 2886: 2869: 2795: 1653: 1546: 1353: 487: 265: 2306: 2290: 1645:

individual editors, and I can see no valid reason to link the two, and the ignore-all-communications clause seems to ignore

3683: 1730:

receiving far too much controversy for something that should have been speedily approved and immediately transitioned to.

1552:

Leave aside for now the question of whether this was a good idea (I think it's not). The deletion were nothing to do with

505: 493: 2368: 2372: 747:

Note 2: The list of parties isn't comprehensive, and there are probably omissions and additions that shouldn't be there.

625: 481: 373: 277: 2601:(B) Betacommand has not communicated in an effective fashion with many editors whose images he has tagged for deletion. 23: 2994: 601: 499: 295: 283: 159: 3647: 3106: 3069: 3017: 2976: 2904: 2861: 2781: 1949: 1745: 673: 385: 271: 61:

and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. All further changes to comments should go on

774: 3603: 3083: 2883: 2865: 2608: 1668: 1620: 1601: 589: 403: 391: 313: 289: 171: 135: 1569:, nor any offer to do so. BC now claims that this was a bad block because I was in a "content dispute" with him 3155: 2519: 685: 451: 379: 241: 189: 177: 3585: 3554: 3530: 3485: 3446: 3413: 3370: 3323: 3290: 3260: 3110: 3052: 3021: 2980: 2959: 2908: 2889: 2844: 2815: 2165: 2101: 2074: 1933: 1795: 1751: 1706: 1677: 1610: 1429: 1397: 1377: 1345: 1317: 1292: 1278: 1252: 1240: 1192: 1110: 1064: 857: 822: 785: 3192: 2835: 2607:(D) In March 2008, after being asked to enable an "opt-out" feature for BetacommandBot, Betacommand created 2161: 2145: 1532:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot#Approval status of BetacommandBot as of April 2007

1265: 1227: 1179: 845: 703: 691: 571: 553: 397: 165: 123: 2298: 1867:

in this area for (eg) possible abuse-type issues, policy clarification and assisting in reconciling issues

3582: 3443: 797: 679: 439: 229: 183: 2579:, to legitimate questions and criticisms, to unacceptable expressions of overt hostility and harassment. 2572: 1137:

Betacommand's anger sometimes spills over into retaliation. (See the diffs regarding MickMacNamee above.)

3725: 3700:) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎(Abusing multiple accounts) (Unblock) — 3691: 3655: 3621: 3565: 3494: 3455: 3422: 3379: 3332: 3300: 3269: 3216: 3178: 3141: 2505: 2210: 2197: 2128: 2119: 2053: 2005:, and respond patiently and accurately to questions from the editors whose images they have challenged." 1945: 1262: 1224: 1176: 1118: 1021:. Of the comments and statements made by others so far, I would like to draw attention to those made by 990: 819: 697: 566: 541: 105: 3828:

administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard

2294: 2286: 890: 68:

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at

1075:"much of the drama surrounding this bot will fall silent once there are only new uploads being tagged" 3711: 3578:

for severe incivility in a discussion concerning NFC images. (from block log, 09:04, 28 July 2008) —

3318: 1661: 1594: 1393: 1373: 1361: 1341: 1313: 1106: 1060: 1022: 649: 469: 421: 308: 211: 2456: 1503:

there is a significant improvement both in the conduct of Betacommand and the operation of his bot.

922:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline

3310: 3151: 3118: 3029: 2948: 2515: 2182: 2176: 2097: 1791: 1776: 900:

In other words, I too support the principle of the work BetacommandBot (or its newly created clone

878: 523: 2340:

5) The English Knowledge (XXG), like other Wikimedia Foundation projects, is primarily based upon

773:

for an ArbCom determination has passed as the tagging work is largely complete. Plus - this isn't

3389: 3354: 3244: 3230: 3188: 2916: 2821: 2811: 2789: 2157: 2141: 2070:

Cannot fault this description and opinion at all (And noting that you posted longer than I did.)

1930: 1909: 851: 637: 259: 2412: 1998: 1735: 1383: 3821:

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

3677: 3579: 3440: 3432: 882: 812:

Two, I handle myself fairly well, given the amount of trolling and abuse that is thrown at me.

3870: 2455:

are processes that modify Knowledge (XXG) content in a fully or partially automated fashion.

2452: 2416: 2349: 2002: 1969: 1723: 1039: 886: 733: 58: 3866: 3780:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed community ban of Betacommand

3721: 3687: 3651: 3617: 3561: 3490: 3451: 3418: 3406: 3375: 3349:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed community ban of Betacommand

3328: 3296: 3265: 3212: 3174: 3137: 2802:

prohibiting "enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed", violating edit is

2576: 2501: 2206: 2194: 2125: 2116: 2049: 1702: 1450: 1425: 874: 783: 619: 367: 100: 3807: 3469: 3436: 2461: 1646: 1581: 1566: 1553: 1540: 1525: 3707: 2988: 1685: 1408: 1389: 1369: 1357: 1337: 1309: 1102: 1056: 986: 978: 864: 464: 416: 206: 153: 2464:

is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits.

2205:

Change to accept. New aspects of the issue continue to arise on seemingly a daily basis.

2660:(A) To remain civil and to refrain from making personal attacks against any contributor; 1803:

Put on hold here, and review (with willingness to extend hold). Discussions in progress.

1639:"You also lose the right to complain about the bots themselves or the issues they raise" 881:

performs a much needed role of helping the en-Knowledge (XXG) community comply with the

3641: 3575: 3543: 3519: 3478: 3287: 3279: 3114: 3100: 3063: 3025: 3011: 2970: 2941: 2898: 2855: 2775: 2093: 1787: 1772: 1742: 1619:: I have only just become aware of another unsatisfactory situation: the newly-created 667: 518: 83:

as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at

897:. I would appreciate it if people could take the time to read that and comment on it. 3363: 3253: 3226: 3077: 2912: 2807: 2785: 2345: 1923: 1902: 982: 839: 830: 254: 1472:

of anything he does, which has impeded efforts to resolve any problems which occur.

3673: 3630:) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎(Personal attacks) — 3342: 2341: 1030: 2656:

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

1859:

Issue (8) If BAG itself is indeed a concern, then I would hope the matter will be

893:

and its archives), I have been working on, and trying to get others to help with,

954:), but received far less attention than that page and its associated discussions. 926:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand/Archive_2#Random_Proposal

3745:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

3395: 1698: 1421: 1007:

was created and speedily approved within two minutes. Betacommand has commented

778: 762: 614: 362: 2932:

regarding civility, refusing to dialogue with fellow editors and edit-warring.

2725:(C) That all the applicable templates are as clear and informative as possible; 1514:

The problems here are long-standing, but I will focus on one case: categories.

3049: 2984: 2193:. There are important issues which need addressing here — one way or another. 1081:. Betacommand finished that about a week ago now, I think, and if you look at 719: 148: 2390:

7) Images and other media that do not meet the requirements described by the

1827:

Issue (4) Operation by others will probably take care of most of this, again

3637: 3536: 3512: 3508: 3473: 3465: 2115:

Reject, per Bainer; happy to reconsider if the community is unable to deal.

1739: 662: 3862: 3096: 3059: 3007: 2966: 2894: 2851: 2771: 1005:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

3073: 2071: 1888: 1494:

The failure of the Bot Approvals Group to take action in case of breaches

1364:) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) And who is allowing betacommand to think he 1289: 1249: 806: 1632:"deletions, reversions, etc. because you were "not notified" about them" 1003:

was approved remains a matter of concern to me. The bot request page at

3392:

for edit warring and not communicating with other per the restriction.

1692:

extensive threaded discussion removed from statement; it can be viewed

1415:

extensive threaded discussion removed from statement; it can be viewed

1354:

User_talk:Betacommand/20080301#The_instructions_at_the_top_of_this_page

938:. Trying to widen the debate and move it forward, I made a proposal at 1125:

that said, as succinctly as possible, my view of the issue is this:

809:

for example has a copy of the BCBot Non-free content tagging scripts

728:: We're sadly lacking this, thus there is the need for arbitration. 3045:

regarding civility and violations of edits-per-minute restriction.

1898: 1459:

the operation and supervision of the non-free-image-tagging process

89:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

85:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

2548: 1854:

Reasonable novel solution for a troublesome exceptional situation

2552: 1223:

excuse personal attacks and incivility is in order, in my view.

985:

when commenting on issues; the disputes between Betacommand and

3168:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies

1488:

Failure to undo problems caused by his bot until he was blocked

3833: 2344:. Free content includes text and media that are either in the 1547:

User_talk:Betacommand/20080301#Removal_of_redlinked_categories

969:

discussions (including Betacommand) have had similar problems.

924:. The closest things to a response to that that I know of are 912:

Distraction from needed work and discussion on non-free images

907:

Several other points I would like the committee to consider:

1352:

Consider the complete non-response from betacommand to this

1033:'s statement above, and the points raised by Franamax below. 805:

point one, those users who I trust have access to the code,

1805:

Rationale as follows (see numbered list of issues above): -

1257:

It's very troubling to me that not only do two arbitrators

3204:

the first point of the community-imposed detailed below. (

989:; and the general reactions to and attacks on MickMacNee, 1516:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot

1761: 3850: 3773: 3738: 3735: 3701: 3665: 3631: 3314: 3283: 3240: 3202: 2936: 2803: 2799: 1693: 1657: 1624: 1570: 1465: 1416: 1387: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1026: 1008: 951: 655: 643: 607: 595: 559: 547: 457: 445: 247: 235: 141: 129: 24:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 2

1762:

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/1/1)

1453:, and the suitability of Betacommand as a bot operator 3347:"User is making automated edits which are banned per 1786:

days and deserves detailed, unified consideration. --

1771:

sufficiently clear case presented in that respect. --

1584:

and to work with BC to improve the bot's operations.

3150:) blocked indefinitely (11:38, December 29 2008) by 2545:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

2235:, where vote counts and comments are also available. 1852:

Issue (7) Decisions like these are reasonable ones.

1654:

User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Consensus_on_proposal

940:

Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria compliance

895:

Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content criteria compliance

3130: 3089: 3041: 3000: 2928: 1824:

for what are essentially differences of philosophy.

2352:("NFCC", formerly "fair use criteria" or "FUC"). 3278:) blocked 24 hours (18:43, November 23, 2008) by 1475:The problems which should be considered include: 944:Knowledge (XXG):Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c 3309:) blocked 24 hours (23:58, 08 November 2008) by 1588:resolve the problem, and the lengthy threads at 79:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the 3858: 3511:for further edit-warring over non-free images. 3225:) blocked 48 hours (12:16, 1 December 2008) by 2939:at ANI found that the block was not justified. 2864:) blocked 48 hours (19:10, 23 October 2011) by 2784:) blocked 60 hours (03:16, 9 November 2011) by 1485:Inadequate documentation of the bots operations 3341:) blocked 72 hours (09:53, 21 August 2008) by 2406:Role of editors who specialize in image review 1085:(and in particular the history of it, such as 3875:provisional suspension of their community ban 2485:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2469:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2441:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2431:Response of users whose images are questioned 2425:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2400:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2380:Passed 11 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2357:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2330:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2314:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2270:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2254:Passed 10 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 1637:That's fair enough, but the next bit is not: 8: 3072:) blocked 24 hours (2011-05-18T11:25:24) by 2757:Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2741:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2704:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2688:Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2672:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2641:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2625:Passed 8 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2584:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2560:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2533:Passed 9 to 0 at 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC). 2935:unblocked after two-and-a-half hours after 80: 1530:. That is an exact quote from the text at 1156:Betacommand takes these trolling comments 3282:for violating civility restrictions with 3187:) blocked 24 hours (10 December 2008) by 2798:) for violation of ArbCom motion enacted 3884:Passed 10-1 on 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 3239:) for clearly violating civility parole 1881:best addressed by users in the community 1861:raised amicably in a suitable discussion 1456:the operation of the Bot Approvals Group 962:User:Carcharoth/Image clean-up galleries 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration 3004:regarding edits-per-minute restriction. 1822:arbitration is not an appropriate venue 1647:Knowledge (XXG):BOT#Dealing_with_issues 1565:BC to repair the damage as required by 1042:compliant (sorry for the jargon there) 883:Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy 87:, and report violations of remedies at 3166:violation of special restrictions per 2281:disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as 1814:Current discussions may resolve issues 1491:Using his bot to attack another editor 1219:firm reminder that being trolled does 1025:(see BHG's statement on her talk page 3869:) from making any edit enforcing the 3832:to blocking. Blocks should be logged 2763:Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions 1879:that is a communal concern, probably 7: 1556:, yet BC repeatedly claimed that it 1001:User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot 902:User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot 2175:Decline for the moment, per James. 1518:shows that BCbot is authorised for 1482:Running bots for unauthorised tasks 1479:Chronic incivility from Betacommand 936:Proposals for what to do afterwards 3435:for edit warring (including stale 2820:Block was expediently overturned. 1652:Attempts to raise this with BC at 1466:longer commentary on the situation 918:Discussions about the WMF deadline 726:Image:Assume good faith lolcat.jpg 31: 2475:Responsibilities of bot operators 3207:the request before he may begin. 2369:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 1684: 1576:technical assessment mechanism. 1407: 1200:A Brief Reply to FT2's Analysis: 3131:#Community-imposed restrictions 3090:#Community-imposed restrictions 3042:#Community-imposed restrictions 3001:#Community-imposed restrictions 2929:#Community-imposed restrictions 1522:Removing or renaming categories 1083:User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI 1038:en-Knowledge (XXG) is at least 3857:Pursuant to the provisions of 3790:Community-imposed restrictions 2373:resolution on licensing policy 1: 3291:08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 3167: 2678:Betacommand and editors urged 1164:criticism that comes his way. 1046:(of course, many images will 887:our non-free content criteria 45:on 12:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 37:on 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 3324:00:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC) 3261:12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 3111:13:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 2890:10:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 2845:04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2816:03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2386:Non-compliant non-free media 1441:Statement by BrownHairedGirl 877:'s non-free image work with 775:Requests for arbitration/10C 53:on 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 3767:Community consensus placed 3371:10:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 2609:User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out 2221:Temporary injunction (none) 1621:User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out 1044:as far as bot scanning goes 946:(courtesy blanked, see the 3905: 2747:Review and future remedies 2245:Purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 2215:19:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2201:16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2186:20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2179:22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2166:10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2150:00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 2132:18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2122:21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 2102:08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 2075:02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 2058:20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1953:16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1934:14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1796:14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1752:23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1707:15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1678:04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 1617:Another problem with BCbot 1611:01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1430:15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1398:16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1378:13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1346:13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1293:15:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1279:11:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 1253:01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1241:19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 1077:. In fact, that stage has 997:Bot approval policy issues 3871:non-free content criteria 3586:13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC) 3555:00:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 3531:00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 2960:05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2909:02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC) 2392:non-free content criteria 2363:Non-free images and media 2350:non-free content criteria 2336:Free and non-free content 1970:non-free content criteria 1913:20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1892:01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1883:, not via this committee. 1873:not for new policy making 1865:I would consider evidence 1847:arbitration is not needed 1833:I would consider evidence 1781:02:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1768:Reject, at least for now. 1318:19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 1193:15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1111:08:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 1065:07:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 858:06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 823:03:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 786:00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 3778:Noticeboard discussion: 3743:Noticeboard discussion: 3486:16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 3468:for edit warring on the 3447:13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 3414:01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 3315:this violation of WP:NPA 3053:02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 3022:06:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 2981:14:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 2447:Role of bots and scripts 2291:assumptions of bad faith 1303:Statement by MickMackNee 791:Statement by Betacommand 734:Non-free content crteria 51:Case amended (by motion) 3734:) ‎(Per AN discussion: 3535:Shortened to 72 hours. 2566:Continued participation 2303:disruptive point-making 2231:All numbering based on 999:. The process by which 958:Work on non-free images 81:#Log of blocks and bans 3774:talk page notification 3739:talk page notification 3702:talk page notification 3666:talk page notification 3636:14:36, April 22, 2008 3632:talk page notification 3602:04:34, April 22, 2008 3464:) blocked 48 hours by 3431:) blocked 31 hours by 3388:) blocked 31 hours by 2652:Betacommand instructed 2539:Prior Arbitration case 1831:. If it does not then 1656:have had the response 1539:"per the decisions of 2260:Means of contributing 1757:Preliminary decisions 1658:"Dont like it? tough" 1537:That's very precise: 1524:per the decisions of 3843:Amendments by motion 3769:editing restrictions 3706:14:22, May 16, 2008 3672:07:07, May 16, 2008 3664:) ‎(10 is plenty) — 3604:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3574:) blocked 1 week by 3109:) blocked 72 hours ( 3020:) blocked 48 hours ( 2866:Tristessa de St Ange 2590:Problematic behavior 2417:biting the newcomers 2415:at all times, avoid 2003:biting the newcomers 2001:at all times, avoid 1382:And to make implied 1079:already been reached 1023:User:BrownHairedGirl 993:and BrownHairedGirl. 891:the policy talk page 873:My position is that 3865:(formerly known as 3795:Discussion located 3311:User:LessHeard vanU 2907:) blocked 2 weeks ( 2462:Bot Approvals Group 948:deletion discussion 879:User:BetacommandBot 59:arbitration request 3757:Other restrictions 3390:User:Rodhullandemu 2979:) blocked 1 week ( 2233:/Proposed decision 1561:evidence of that. 1510:Unauthorised tasks 1141:certain that I've 1071:Additional comment 1019:Comments by others 991:User:Bellwether BC 781: 74:/Proposed decision 3433:User:Arthur Rubin 2842: 2309:, is prohibited. 2307:gaming the system 1932: 1911: 1750: 1713:Statement by ST47 1676: 1609: 1276: 1267: 1238: 1229: 1190: 1181: 1073:- Laralove says: 798:Crotalus horridus 779: 22:(Redirected from 3896: 3853: 3759: 3758: 3549: 3525: 3412: 3409: 3403: 3368: 3360: 3258: 3250: 3201:) for violating 2957: 2951: 2944: 2841: 2836: 2833: 2491:Findings of fact 2283:personal attacks 1929: 1926: 1908: 1905: 1869:as a last resort 1840:a matter for BAG 1748: 1688: 1667: 1664: 1600: 1597: 1411: 1386:in a discussion 1368:just not reply. 1270: 1266: 1232: 1228: 1184: 1180: 975:Behaviour issues 875:User:Betacommand 854: 848: 842: 713: 659: 632:deleted contribs 611: 584:deleted contribs 563: 536:deleted contribs 515: 461: 434:deleted contribs 413: 359: 305: 251: 224:deleted contribs 199: 145: 118:deleted contribs 95:Involved parties 27: 3904: 3903: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3855: 3849: 3845: 3792: 3787: 3756: 3755: 3595:From block log: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3527: 3526: 3523: 3407: 3396: 3393: 3364: 3361: 3356: 3254: 3251: 3246: 2955: 2949: 2942: 2837: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2765: 2749: 2712: 2710:Community input 2696: 2694:Editors advised 2680: 2654: 2649: 2633: 2592: 2568: 2541: 2498: 2493: 2477: 2449: 2433: 2408: 2388: 2365: 2338: 2322: 2278: 2262: 2247: 2242: 2228: 2223: 1924: 1903: 1863:, if possible. 1764: 1759: 1715: 1662: 1595: 1449:the conduct of 1443: 1324:Response to FT2 1305: 1275: 1237: 1189: 1122: 987:User:MickMacNee 979:User:Hammersoft 952:deletion review 868: 852: 846: 840: 834: 793: 766: 723: 665: 617: 569: 521: 467: 419: 365: 311: 309:BrownHairedGirl 257: 209: 151: 103: 97: 54: 46: 38: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3902: 3900: 3891: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3854: 3846: 3844: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3791: 3788: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3764: 3763: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3741: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3599: 3598: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3576:User:Sandstein 3559: 3558: 3557: 3546: 3545: 3522: 3521: 3488: 3449: 3416: 3373: 3355: 3326: 3294: 3280:User:Lankiveil 3263: 3245: 3210: 3172: 3152:LessHeard vanU 3135: 3094: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3005: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2892: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2828: 2824: 2764: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2711: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2695: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2679: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2661: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2621: 2620: 2617: 2605: 2602: 2599: 2591: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2540: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2516:BetacommandBot 2497: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2476: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2432: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2407: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2387: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2238: 2227: 2226:Final decision 2224: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2203: 2188: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2135: 2134: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1962: 1961: 1955: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1916: 1915: 1895: 1894: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1876: 1857: 1850: 1843: 1836: 1825: 1818: 1812:Issues (1)(2) 1807: 1806: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1628: 1627: 1512: 1511: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1480: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1401: 1400: 1380: 1349: 1348: 1328: 1327: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1282: 1281: 1271: 1244: 1243: 1233: 1196: 1195: 1185: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1154: 1146: 1138: 1135: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1035: 1034: 1016: 994: 972: 971: 970: 955: 933: 867: 861: 833: 827: 826: 825: 817: 813: 810: 792: 789: 765: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 744: 722: 716: 715: 714: 660: 612: 564: 516: 462: 414: 360: 306: 252: 204: 146: 96: 93: 49: 41: 33: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3901: 3892: 3885: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3852: 3847: 3842: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3820: 3816: 3814:he may begin. 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3798: 3789: 3781: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3761: 3752: 3751: 3746: 3742: 3740: 3736: 3733: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3716: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3696: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3629: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3612: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3570: 3567: 3563: 3560: 3556: 3553: 3552: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3489: 3487: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3477: 3476: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3450: 3448: 3445: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3420: 3417: 3415: 3410: 3404: 3402: 3400: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3374: 3372: 3369: 3367: 3362: 3359: 3352: 3350: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3327: 3325: 3322: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3305: 3302: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3259: 3257: 3252: 3249: 3242: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3208: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3194: 3190: 3189:Pascal.Tesson 3186: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3146: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3133: 3132: 3129:violation of 3126: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3091: 3088:violation of 3085: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3044: 3043: 3040:violation of 3037: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3006: 3003: 3002: 2999:violation of 2996: 2993: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2953: 2952: 2946: 2945: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2931: 2930: 2927:violation of 2924: 2921: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2903: 2900: 2896: 2893: 2891: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2860: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2834: 2832: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2794: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2746: 2742: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2730: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2693: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2677: 2673: 2670: 2669: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2651: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2589: 2585: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2574: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2474: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2463: 2458: 2454: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2430: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2405: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2393: 2385: 2381: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2351: 2347: 2346:public domain 2343: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2319: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2259: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2244: 2239: 2237: 2236: 2234: 2225: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2178: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158:Sam Blacketer 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2142:Sam Blacketer 2137: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2127: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2006: 2004: 2000: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1946:The Uninvited 1944: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1900: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1882: 1877: 1875:if avoidable. 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1838:Issue (5) is 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1756: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1737: 1731: 1727: 1725: 1719: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1648: 1642: 1640: 1635: 1633: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1591: 1585: 1583: 1577: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1542: 1535: 1533: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1517: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1504: 1502: 1493: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1467: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1440: 1438: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1388: 1385: 1384:legal threats 1381: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1302: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1166: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1120: 1119:Bellwether BC 1117:Statement by 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 995: 992: 988: 984: 983:User:Laralove 980: 976: 973: 967: 966:its talk page 963: 959: 956: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 934: 931: 927: 923: 919: 916: 915: 913: 910: 909: 908: 905: 903: 898: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 871: 866: 863:Statement by 862: 860: 859: 856: 855: 849: 844: 843: 832: 829:Statement by 828: 824: 821: 818: 814: 811: 808: 804: 803: 802: 800: 799: 790: 788: 787: 784: 782: 776: 770: 764: 761:Statement by 760: 753: 750: 749: 748: 745: 743: 739: 738: 737: 735: 729: 727: 721: 718:Statement by 717: 711: 708: 705: 702: 699: 696: 693: 690: 687: 684: 681: 678: 675: 672: 669: 664: 661: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 642: 639: 636: 633: 630: 627: 624: 621: 616: 613: 609: 606: 603: 600: 597: 594: 591: 588: 585: 582: 579: 576: 573: 568: 567:Bellwether BC 565: 561: 558: 555: 552: 549: 546: 543: 540: 537: 534: 531: 528: 525: 520: 517: 513: 510: 507: 504: 501: 498: 495: 492: 489: 486: 483: 480: 477: 474: 471: 466: 463: 459: 456: 453: 450: 447: 444: 441: 438: 435: 432: 429: 426: 423: 418: 415: 411: 408: 405: 402: 399: 396: 393: 390: 387: 384: 381: 378: 375: 372: 369: 364: 361: 357: 354: 351: 348: 345: 342: 339: 336: 333: 330: 327: 324: 321: 318: 315: 310: 307: 303: 300: 297: 294: 291: 288: 285: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 261: 256: 253: 249: 246: 243: 240: 237: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 208: 205: 203: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 164: 161: 158: 155: 150: 147: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 128: 125: 122: 119: 116: 113: 110: 107: 102: 99: 98: 94: 92: 90: 86: 82: 77: 75: 71: 66: 64: 60: 55: 52: 47: 44: 39: 36: 25: 19: 3890: 3883: 3856: 3848:Modified by 3829: 3825: 3811: 3794: 3793: 3754: 3753: 3728: 3720:) unblocked 3714: 3694: 3680: 3658: 3650:) unblocked 3644: 3624: 3610: 3594: 3593: 3580:Arthur Rubin 3568: 3544: 3538: 3537: 3520: 3514: 3513: 3507:72 hours by 3504: 3497: 3480: 3479: 3474: 3458: 3441:Arthur Rubin 3425: 3398: 3397: 3382: 3365: 3357: 3346: 3343:User:Viridae 3335: 3319: 3303: 3272: 3255: 3247: 3233: 3219: 3205: 3195: 3181: 3165: 3158: 3144: 3128: 3121: 3103: 3087: 3080: 3066: 3039: 3032: 3014: 2998: 2991: 2973: 2947: 2940: 2926: 2919: 2901: 2879: 2872: 2858: 2838: 2823: 2792: 2778: 2766: 2756: 2750: 2740: 2734: 2713: 2703: 2697: 2687: 2681: 2671: 2655: 2640: 2634: 2624: 2613:quid pro quo 2612: 2593: 2583: 2569: 2559: 2542: 2532: 2522: 2508: 2499: 2484: 2478: 2468: 2450: 2440: 2434: 2424: 2409: 2399: 2389: 2379: 2366: 2356: 2342:free content 2339: 2329: 2323: 2320:User conduct 2313: 2279: 2269: 2263: 2253: 2248: 2230: 2229: 2190: 2174: 2138: 2114: 2024: 2019: 1996: 1983: 1957: 1942: 1880: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1853: 1846: 1839: 1832: 1828: 1821: 1813: 1802: 1767: 1732: 1728: 1720: 1716: 1689: 1683: 1651: 1643: 1638: 1636: 1631: 1629: 1616: 1586: 1578: 1574: 1563: 1557: 1551: 1538: 1536: 1519: 1513: 1505: 1500: 1497: 1474: 1470: 1462: 1444: 1436: 1412: 1406: 1365: 1334:cannot check 1333: 1323: 1306: 1272: 1258: 1234: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1186: 1170: 1161: 1157: 1149: 1142: 1131: 1123: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1053: 1047: 1043: 1036: 1031:User:MBisanz 1018: 1012: 996: 974: 957: 935: 917: 911: 906: 899: 872: 869: 850: 838: 835: 796:Response to 795: 794: 771: 767: 751: 746: 740: 730: 724: 706: 700: 694: 688: 682: 676: 670: 652: 646: 640: 634: 628: 622: 604: 598: 592: 586: 580: 574: 556: 550: 544: 538: 532: 526: 508: 502: 496: 490: 484: 478: 472: 454: 448: 442: 436: 430: 424: 406: 400: 394: 388: 382: 376: 370: 352: 346: 340: 334: 328: 322: 316: 298: 292: 286: 280: 274: 268: 262: 244: 238: 232: 226: 220: 214: 202:filing party 201: 192: 186: 180: 174: 168: 162: 156: 138: 132: 126: 120: 114: 108: 78: 67: 56: 50: 48: 42: 40: 34: 32: 3867:Betacommand 3722:Betacommand 3688:Betacommand 3652:Betacommand 3618:Betacommand 3562:Betacommand 3491:Betacommand 3452:Betacommand 3419:Betacommand 3376:Betacommand 3329:Betacommand 3297:Betacommand 3266:Betacommand 3213:Betacommand 3175:Betacommand 3138:Betacommand 2502:Betacommand 2496:Betacommand 2207:Newyorkbrad 2195:Paul August 2050:Newyorkbrad 2025:Betacommand 1829:may be moot 1690:Clerk note: 1451:Betacommand 1413:Clerk note: 1040:WP:NFCC#10c 686:protections 488:protections 386:protections 332:protections 278:protections 172:protections 101:Betacommand 43:Case Closed 35:Case Opened 3859:Remedy 5.1 3826:uninvolved 3708:Carcharoth 3686:) blocked 3616:) blocked 3503:) blocked 3320:Black Kite 2631:Disruption 2616:justified. 2547:, decided 2299:harassment 2287:incivility 2240:Principles 2020:Abu badali 1665:HairedGirl 1598:HairedGirl 1390:MickMacNee 1370:MickMacNee 1358:MickMacNee 1338:MickMacNee 1310:MickMacNee 1263:Bellwether 1225:Bellwether 1177:Bellwether 1162:legitimate 1145:succeeded. 1103:Carcharoth 1057:Carcharoth 865:Carcharoth 698:page moves 650:block user 644:filter log 602:block user 596:filter log 554:block user 548:filter log 500:page moves 465:Carcharoth 452:block user 446:filter log 417:Hammersoft 398:page moves 344:page moves 290:page moves 242:block user 236:filter log 207:MickMacNee 184:page moves 136:block user 130:filter log 3509:User:Neil 3466:User:Neil 3288:Lankiveil 3284:this edit 3115:Kingpin13 3026:Lankiveil 2937:consensus 2884:Tristessa 2573:barnstars 1590:WP:ANI/BC 1213:something 692:deletions 656:block log 608:block log 560:block log 519:Badagnani 494:deletions 458:block log 392:deletions 338:deletions 284:deletions 248:block log 178:deletions 142:block log 70:/Workshop 65:subpage. 63:/Evidence 3732:contribs 3718:contribs 3698:contribs 3684:contribs 3662:contribs 3648:contribs 3628:contribs 3614:contribs 3572:contribs 3501:contribs 3462:contribs 3429:contribs 3386:contribs 3366:Islander 3339:contribs 3307:contribs 3276:contribs 3256:Islander 3237:contribs 3227:Islander 3223:contribs 3199:contribs 3185:contribs 3162:contribs 3148:contribs 3125:contribs 3107:contribs 3084:contribs 3070:contribs 3036:contribs 3018:contribs 2995:contribs 2977:contribs 2923:contribs 2913:Asterion 2905:contribs 2876:contribs 2862:contribs 2808:Franamax 2796:contribs 2786:Franamax 2782:contribs 2647:Remedies 2526:contribs 2512:contribs 2295:trolling 2181:Accept. 2126:James F. 2117:James F. 1958:Comments 1925:FayssalF 1904:FayssalF 1871:... but 1736:WP:CIVIL 1673:contribs 1606:contribs 950:and the 831:LaraLove 807:User:Lar 742:neutral. 674:contribs 626:contribs 578:contribs 530:contribs 476:contribs 428:contribs 374:contribs 320:contribs 266:contribs 255:LaraLove 218:contribs 160:contribs 112:contribs 3818:detect. 3674:MBisanz 3437:WP:3RRs 2831:anguard 2575:listed 2457:Scripts 2276:Decorum 1724:WP:NFCC 3851:motion 3812:before 3808:WP:VPR 3583:(talk) 3505:1 week 3470:WP:NFC 3444:(talk) 3164:) for 3127:) for 3086:) for 3038:) for 2997:) for 2943:Eagles 2925:) for 2887:(talk) 2878:) for 2543:2) In 2305:, and 2191:Accept 2183:Kirill 2177:Kirill 2129:(talk) 2120:(talk) 2094:bainer 1943:Accept 1899:Recuse 1788:bainer 1773:bainer 1749:(st47) 1743:ʎʇɹnoɟ 1699:Daniel 1669:(talk) 1602:(talk) 1582:WP:BOT 1567:WP:BOT 1554:WP:CFD 1541:WP:CFD 1526:WP:CFD 1501:unless 1422:Daniel 1259:oppose 1148:There 1143:always 1029:) and 780:Avruch 763:Avruch 704:rights 680:blocks 615:Avruch 506:rights 482:blocks 404:rights 380:blocks 363:Friday 350:rights 326:blocks 296:rights 272:blocks 190:rights 166:blocks 3830:prior 3401:levse 3113:) by 3050:Rd232 3024:) by 2985:Rd232 2983:) by 2911:) by 2549:May 3 2413:civil 1999:civil 1948:Co., 1901:. -- 1740:uǝʌǝs 1663:Brown 1596:Brown 1089:and 1048:still 720:Maxim 149:Maxim 16:< 3834:here 3797:here 3737:) — 3726:talk 3712:talk 3692:talk 3678:talk 3656:talk 3642:talk 3638:Hu12 3622:talk 3608:talk 3566:talk 3539:Neıl 3515:Neıl 3495:talk 3475:Neıl 3456:talk 3423:talk 3408:Talk 3380:talk 3358:Talk 3333:talk 3313:for 3301:talk 3270:talk 3248:Talk 3241:here 3231:talk 3217:talk 3193:talk 3179:talk 3156:talk 3142:talk 3119:talk 3101:talk 3078:talk 3064:talk 3030:talk 3012:talk 2989:talk 2971:talk 2950:24/7 2917:talk 2899:talk 2882:. -- 2870:talk 2856:talk 2839:Wha? 2827:ven 2812:talk 2804:here 2800:here 2790:talk 2776:talk 2577:here 2553:2007 2520:talk 2506:talk 2453:Bots 2451:10) 2211:talk 2162:talk 2146:talk 2098:talk 2054:talk 1950:Inc. 1792:talk 1777:talk 1703:talk 1694:here 1426:talk 1417:here 1394:talk 1374:talk 1362:talk 1342:talk 1314:talk 1217:very 1204:many 1153:him. 1107:talk 1099:here 1095:here 1093:and 1091:here 1087:here 1061:talk 1027:here 1009:here 981:and 964:and 928:and 853:Love 841:Lara 752:More 668:talk 663:ST47 638:logs 620:talk 590:logs 572:talk 542:logs 524:talk 470:talk 440:logs 422:talk 368:talk 314:talk 260:talk 230:logs 212:talk 154:talk 124:logs 106:talk 3074:CBM 2956:(C) 2500:1) 2367:6) 2072:FT2 1889:FT2 1671:• ( 1604:• ( 1558:was 1549:). 1366:can 1290:FT2 1250:FT2 1221:not 1158:far 1132:all 816:it. 710:RfA 512:RfA 410:RfA 356:RfA 302:RfA 196:RfA 76:. 3877:. 3411:• 3405:• 3394:— 3353:- 3345:- 3317:. 3243:. 2814:) 2806:. 2551:, 2375:. 2301:, 2297:, 2293:, 2289:, 2285:, 2213:) 2164:) 2148:) 2100:) 2092:-- 2056:) 1928:- 1907:- 1794:) 1779:) 1746:ʇs 1705:) 1649:. 1641:. 1634:. 1593:-- 1534:. 1428:) 1396:) 1376:) 1344:) 1316:) 1208:he 1150:is 1109:) 1063:) 1011:: 801:: 777:. 200:, 91:. 3863:Δ 3836:. 3799:. 3782:. 3760:: 3729:· 3724:( 3715:· 3710:( 3695:· 3690:( 3681:· 3676:( 3659:· 3654:( 3645:· 3640:( 3625:· 3620:( 3611:· 3606:( 3569:· 3564:( 3548:☄ 3524:☄ 3498:· 3493:( 3481:龱 3459:· 3454:( 3426:· 3421:( 3399:R 3383:· 3378:( 3351:" 3336:· 3331:( 3304:· 3299:( 3293:. 3273:· 3268:( 3234:· 3229:( 3220:· 3215:( 3209:) 3196:· 3191:( 3182:· 3177:( 3171:. 3159:· 3154:( 3145:· 3140:( 3134:. 3122:· 3117:( 3104:· 3099:( 3097:Δ 3093:. 3081:· 3076:( 3067:· 3062:( 3060:Δ 3033:· 3028:( 3015:· 3010:( 3008:Δ 2992:· 2987:( 2974:· 2969:( 2967:Δ 2920:· 2915:( 2902:· 2897:( 2895:Δ 2873:· 2868:( 2859:· 2854:( 2852:Δ 2829:M 2825:S 2810:( 2793:· 2788:( 2779:· 2774:( 2772:Δ 2523:· 2518:( 2509:· 2504:( 2209:( 2198:☎ 2160:( 2144:( 2096:( 2052:( 1960:: 1849:. 1790:( 1775:( 1701:( 1696:. 1675:) 1625:[ 1623:. 1608:) 1543:" 1528:" 1520:" 1424:( 1419:. 1392:( 1372:( 1360:( 1340:( 1326:: 1312:( 1273:C 1235:C 1187:C 1105:( 1059:( 847:❤ 820:β 712:) 707:· 701:· 695:· 689:· 683:· 677:· 671:· 666:( 658:) 653:· 647:· 641:· 635:· 629:· 623:· 618:( 610:) 605:· 599:· 593:· 587:· 581:· 575:· 570:( 562:) 557:· 551:· 545:· 539:· 533:· 527:· 522:( 514:) 509:· 503:· 497:· 491:· 485:· 479:· 473:· 468:( 460:) 455:· 449:· 443:· 437:· 431:· 425:· 420:( 412:) 407:· 401:· 395:· 389:· 383:· 377:· 371:· 366:( 358:) 353:· 347:· 341:· 335:· 329:· 323:· 317:· 312:( 304:) 299:· 293:· 287:· 281:· 275:· 269:· 263:· 258:( 250:) 245:· 239:· 233:· 227:· 221:· 215:· 210:( 198:) 193:· 187:· 181:· 175:· 169:· 163:· 157:· 152:( 144:) 139:· 133:· 127:· 121:· 115:· 109:· 104:( 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index