Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop

Structure of workshop

Just a note, I plan on removing the sections of my "proposals" section that are unused—e.g., remedies, which I do not plan on proposing at this time. I assume this is acceptable. AGK § 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing already. Lawrence § t/e 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that anyone who makes their own "Proposals by me" section ~~remove any unused templates~~ does this, or at most leave one to copy off? The page is about fifteen screens long already. Happy‑melon 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My principles

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop#Proposals by Lawrence Cohen. Please weigh in, thats probably going to be my only contribution, and what prompted me to leave a statement in the first place. I ask that the AC add these questions to the Proposed Decision, since this disconnect (see all the times Betacommandbot has been blocked and yelled at, for example) of authority over bots and the BAG seems crucial here. This really needs to be defined, because I'm sure we're sick of the nigh daily "I BLOCKED BCBOT" threads and incredible hate they generate. Lawrence § t/e 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work

This is the first ArbCom case I've been at all involved with, so I'm wondering how this page tends to develop, and any conventions that might not be obvious. Are editors, for instance, encouraged, discouraged, or prohibited from editing the wording of other people's proposals? Is there usually a flurry of proposals which are consolidated into a few before acceptance, or do the Arbitrators and clerks cherry-pick ones that look the best from a larger number of (possibly similar) proposed wordings? Happy‑melon 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're generally forbidden from editing others' sections, but feel free to post whatever you want otherwise. It's expected that the pages will get long and unwieldy; the long and acrimonious IRC and Mantanmoreland cases both generated around 2000KB of discussion. east.718 at 19:13, March 16, 2008

OK, thanks. And the other question? Happy‑melon 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators, in my experience, do read all this, but often just write their own proposals and remedies, Some arbitrators participate directly on the page (posting proposals and commenting on those by others), others don't. They have their own mailing list and private wiki, and I suspect some concentrate mostly on the evidence. But possibly the discussions here by the community help the arbitrators gauge community feelings. So in effect, say what you want (remembering to keep it calm and considered), but don't expect your carefully worded remedy to be lauded as the perfect solution and used in the final decision. On the other hand, there have been changes to the way things work, so maybe what I just wrote was all wrong. Probably best to wait for an arbitrator to weigh in here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is any one person so valuable they can't be blocked or sanctioned?

That seems to be the implication of a lot of the responses to proposals here ("You can't block or restrict Beta unless you can replace him"). Interesting precedent, there: is anyone above restriction or sanction? What would have to be the circumstances for that? Lawrence § t/e 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read some of these responses: "are some editors so valuable they're exempt from the policies and guidelines other editors are held to?" My answer would be no, of course not, and any remedy that would be appropriate for another editor should be appropriate here as well, regardless of the value of his work. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he's unreplaceable. I think it might be better to sanction him short of taking his bot away, however, and have said exactly that. A bot on parole, perhaps? A long accepted principle of arbitration is to avoid imposing sanctions greater than are necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony here. I think something with teeth needs to be done, but taking the bot away seems a bit draconian. Perhaps the enforcement can be structured such that there is a "1 strike you're out for a week" rule, escalating to indef if the problem doesn't go away after a set number of "escalating blocks." One way or the other, something must be done. Bellwether ^B _C 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that Betacommandbot does a necessary job, and if you were to sanction Betacommand then someone else should do the work of tagging non-free images. The job Betacommandbot does is not at issue here, the conduct of Betacommand (and perhaps the exact operating details of Betacommandbot) is what is at issue here. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent is that addressed by having someone else run the code as nfcc10c bot? Gimmetrow 21:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirely plausible scenario, You could run your own bot, (I don't know the copyright status of BCB's code is,) or for that matter incorporate BCB's functionality into the wiki itself, into the post-3/23 image-upload process. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCB is closed source code. Currently no one else is permitted to run it on their own machine. User:Lar has a copy of that portion of the code, but it prohibited from sharing it. Other users have access to the control to turn on that code for NFCC Bot, but I do not believe they have the code. Therefore, it would need to be open-source re-written to run under another user or be incorporated into Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gathered in the discussions I've been involved in, the image portion of what BCBot code would be quite simple to just write from the ground up. I don't know about the other portions, though. Bellwether ^B _C 23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the basic idea is very simple, but due to issues that I have discovered while running the bot it has become very complex building in unique issues that arise. β^_command 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the case with closed-source, you could theoretically replicate the functionality, but you do not gain the benefit of the troubleshooting history of the initial programm. It's an interesting irony that a program that is flagging non-free items in an open-source project is itself non-free, but that's apparently not a requirement for bots. -- RoninBK _{T C} 23:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had more faith in the community it would be more open, but given the fact that there are users who game what I say to avoid writing rationales, insult my profession, make countless personal attacks, and what some would call trusted users (the antichrist incident) lie to your face, I have lost my trust with the average user. there have even been cases of standing ArbCom members (at the time) un-blocking a user who knowingly made legal threats, (and actually took steps in filing a case) against a long standing, valued member of the community who was then forced to retire. so what makes me willing to blindly trust such a group with anything sensitive? β^_command 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to disparage your reasons for withholding your rights, they are exactly that, your rights. Forcing you to turn over your code would run contrary to the principles your bot aided in protecting.

I would note observationally that the complete depletion of your ability to assume good faith anymore is probably a large portion of why this case is here, -- RoninBK _{T C}

00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(To Betacommand) Um, I assume you mean the Archtransit incident, rather than the Antichrist incident, unless there is a recent development that I am missing. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will this be affected by the March 23 deadline?

(Not sure where to bring this up, so I'll post it here.) We're coming upon a major deadline thanks to the Licensing policy resolution, which will likely occur during the duration of this case. I am not clear about how Betacommandbot would operate after March 23, (if allowed to continue without sanction,) and how that could/would/should factor into the proposed remedies here. -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Arbs are aware of the deadline through their reading of the evidence, but feel free to add a line on that to evidence. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]