Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed decision

message: ;Active
*Charles Matthews 
*FloNight 
*Fred Bauder 
*Jpgordon
*Kirill Lokshin
*Mackensen 
*Morven 
*Paul August
*SimonP 
*UninvitedCompany 
*Blnguyen
;Inactive
*Jdforrester
*Flcelloguy
*Neutrality
*Raul654
As of the opening of this case, there are 13 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so the majority is 7. Although Blnguyen is currently listed as away, he voted to accept this case and therefore is included as an active arbitrator on the case unless he states otherwise. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Blnguyen is now fully active. Flcelloguy currently away. Thus, as of the voting stage, 12 active arbs, majority still 7. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BInguyen is away again but has voted.  Jdforrester has not edited in 3 weeks and is listed as inactive, FIcelloguy has returned but is not active on cases opened or placed in voting while he was away; tally is now 11/6. Thatcher131 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators

message: I'm particularly amused by the implication in proposed finding of fact 12 part 3, that anyone could consider WebmasterWorld a reliable source of anything.  I suppose if the owner of website admits there and on his site that he's doing inappropriate things, it might be appropriate to propose it for the Meta blocklist, but, even then, there may be legitimate sub-sites hosted there.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WebmasterWorld]] 

message: Dear arbitrators,
Would you care to consider an alternate proposal to #6 of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed_decision#Approval_for_high-speed_automated_edits, which I have made today, in the workshop here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop#Editors_who_Wish_to_use_Semi-Automated_Tools_for_High_Speed_Editing_who_pass_5_Edits_per_Minute_Must_seek_A_Bot_Flag.2C_without_the_nessecity_of_creating_a_seperate_Bot_account.
Thank you.
--Parker007 11:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approval_for_high-speed_automated_edits (Aleternate version) 

message: I've been following the results of this case, and the new proposed principle 6a concerns me as a member of the community and a member of the BAG.  The term "semi-automated" is not officially defined anywhere and as a result, any ArbCom ruling over whether or not "semi-automated" scripts or bots are acceptable is not helpful.  In the worst case, it could be used by users to abuse the system.  I ask that ArbCom consider clarifying this definition.  How does semi-automated differ from a manual bot?  A manual bot performs certain actions automatically, but the important distinction is whether or not the edits must be confirmed.  BAG has differentiated between types of automated bots for convienence, but nothing more.  The threshold for approvals is whether the final decision-making is automatic.  Now, I wouldn't mind a definition separating types of manual bots: sometimes the manual confirmation is straightforward and represents a trivial change, but other times it is much more complex.  I think of image deletion tasks.  Before deleting an image, an administrator must check numerous pages, including "What Links Here" before finalizing the delete.  A bot could conceivably be used to automatically gather these pages and then present the user with a question as to whether or not to delete.  This would technically be a manual bot, and except for its admin functionality, it would not require approval.  Is this considered semi-automated? -- RM 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Automated