Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand
Case Opened on 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
Involved parties
- AnonEMouse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
- )
- Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- talk · contribs)
Requests for comment
Statement by AnonEMouse
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Betacommand AGAIN - this time.2C ext. link removals
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#Betacommand questionable blocking
The first incident, on March 21, had Betacommand apparently using a computerized tool from his own account to remove links to usenet groups across hundreds of articles, without discussion. His edit speeds have been estimated at 30 edits per minute. Many editors quickly showed up at his user talk page to complain; his responses were minimal, curt, or entirely lacking, and the deletion went on at high speeds. (See
The second incident, on March 23, he again used a computer assisted tool, no longer at 30, but still at 5 to 15 edits per minute, removing other external links across unrelated articles, including to the official site of
The third incident is today, March 26. He has apparently blocked a user for participation in a content dispute. After mass criticism on AN/I by many admins, he unblocked the user, without admitting that he was wrong. That same page, today, uncovered issues with apparently automated blocking users for username violations. User:Mel Etitis apparently blocked Betacommand for this, or a combination of these actions.
AN/I consensus seems to be that these recurring issues demand further action, and that Betacommand has lost the community's trust as an admin. If the community noticeboard could take intermediate steps besides outright ban, I'd take it there. As far as I understand, it can't. Apparently stewards won't desysop someone without an arbcom ruling either. Betacommand is a well-meaning user, and a skilled bot developer, who has the community effect of a porcupine in a nudist colony. Hopefully some kind of intermediate action besides outright ban will be enough to de-quill him. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to ChrisO
I'm actually not that interested in considering the incidents separately; separately they're each, not good, but everyone makes mistakes. I'm concerned with a long history of disregard for other users (see above and below). I'm concerned with 3 major (look at the people involved in each!) AN/I incidents in 6 days, without a single "I understand", "I was wrong", or "I won't do it again". I'm not interested in punishing him for what he did, that can be fixed, or has been fixed. I'm concerned with preventing the next one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to Mackensen
By clerk permission! :-) As my response to ChrisO above, and as Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary, and Comment by Chacor below. The individual issues are all or mostly settled, the problem is that they just keep on coming. I'm not even talking about dredging up stuff from November or December. The 3 incidents from my statement were in the last 6 consecutive days. From Bishonen's statement: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#Trigger-happy_blocking_by_Betacommand is another big todo, Feb 27-28, less than a month before. Chris's list of incidents below fills in the spaces between that. :-(. I'm not asking for a ban, but we need something, maybe probation, maybe a formal reprimand, maybe a temporary desysop, but something with teeth. Each time people assume he's learned and it won't happen again, but the issues just keep coming. Like a bull in a china shop, every time he turns there's a loud crash. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Statement by Mel Etitis
[With regard to Tony Sidaway's (initially) only comment on the issue.] Ah, history slipping in here a little. I suggest that you look at the facts of the matter, including my message at
- With regard to this RfArb, I can only add that, like many editors, I've watched a series of problems arise because of Betacommand's inappropriate use of bots and now blocks, and it seems to a large proportion of the many admins and other editors commenting on him at WP:AN/I that it's inappropriate that he should continue to be trusted with admin tools. It may be that he simply needs more experience before being allowed them, it may be that he's temperamentally unsuited — I don't know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)]
Statement by Chrislk02
Here is a recent timeline of suspicious, controversial and possible innapropriate actions by betacommand many that I have been involved with, witnessed and or confronted betacommand about.
- 27 Nov 2006 - [2], and following logs. Started deleting images upwards of 20 per minute for a time period deleting updwards of 500 images over a short period of time.
- 28 Nov 2006 - betacommand is blocked and then unblocked for running an unauthorized deletion bot. The unblock comment states, "(I don't think he is going to do that again) "
- 18 Feb 2007 - [3] HighinBC expresses concerns of Betacommands bolcking habits.
- 20 Feb 2007 - [4] an administror expresses concerns of betacommands blocking and denying of unblock requests in relation to a usernameblock
- 22 Feb 2007 - [5] in his contribs where he pretty much started auto reporting all usernames that had been blocked before to WP:ANIand on his talk page
- 22 Feb 2007 - comment I left regarding bad usernames. Situation where betacommand made a point, only sees things in black and white.
- 22 Feb 2007 - [6] a thread where I expressed my concerns over blocking habits, point violations and other concerns I have had.
- 23 Feb 2007 me expressing concerns in regards to the probably use of a blocking bot by beta command.
- 8 Mar 2007 - A series of 9 blocks in 1 minute, very improabbly all were done manual with proper review.
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.13.50 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "202.58.63.200 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.109.49.47 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.243.12 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "121.44.236.252 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "210.11.241.21 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tuddy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Voyages (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Svm-en (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming)
- 21 Mar 2007 00:01 - 17:34 [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] a series of 3,000 external link removals at bot like speeds with many more per hour than humanly possible at times.
- 21 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding link deletion at bot like speeds.
- 23 Mar 2007 13:16 - 17:37 -Fairly rapid remval of abou 200 (appprox) external links in a similar manner as objeted to on the previous ani post. This action stopped when he was warned of a block again.
- 23 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding external link removal.
- 26 Mar 207 - most recent ANI posting regarding innapropriate block of a user editing an article he was engaged in.
I think all of these actions, plus several other pas actions which I have not summarized here (his block log includes 3 blocks for unatuirhorized bots). There are also several other username blocks that many users have expressed concern over. usernames such as
In summary, betacommand has shown repeated abuse of administrator tools over a period of time including blocking and deleting as well as abuse of Bot policies. If it were n isolated incident, i would be more likley to drop it but these incidents have occured over time which leads me to believe that betacommand should not be entrusted with the administrators tools.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As a further clarification, i respect Betacommands contributions to this community. I have no vendetta against him and would actually not like to see him immediatly de-sysopped. My concerns posted here are only for what I feel are actions that have and, should similar actions be repeated, permanently damage this community. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary
As a further clarification, I believe that this request for arbitration is still necessary as an review of his behavior and for a final ruling. He has got many "Dont do it agains," which have gone unheeded. While I feel an immediate de-sysop is innapropriate, I feel that this should be a last, "Dont do it again" that is endorsed by the community and the arbitration commitee. The many message left at ANI and on his talk page have apparently been left in vain. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Chrislk02's response to Nick
I at no point claimed that the username blocks by betacommand were current, merely having occured since the originial
Statement by Betacommand
Ok in regard to username blocks I have almost completely stopped issuing those, and with hindsight I should not have blocked as many borderline users as I did. In the rare cases where I do issue them now they are for obvious reasons. Removing mass external links was inappropriate and should not have happened, as I said on the ANI post I shall seek consensus before removing any external links in the future. The bot operator issue as been solved, the scope and exact task are being reviewed by
In regard to the
]Statement by Parker007
According to the BOT Policy esp
I shall now quote a statement from the initiating party User:AnonEMouse The first incident, on March 21, had Betacommand apparently using a computerized tool from his own account to remove links to usenet groups across hundreds of articles, without discussion. His edit speeds have been estimated at 30 edits per minute.
I therefore conclude, per the policy
Sincerly,
--Parker007 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Preliminary decisions
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)
- Accept. Code is law, thus bot writers have a particular obligation to the community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, per ChrisO's and El C's comments. I myself have blocked at high speed before, usually after a checkuser run. As I understand it Betacommand's BAG privileges are under review, and I should think he's got the message by now. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Flip-flopping again. Are there open unresolved problems related of recent date? [time passes] I'm not convinced that the attention of the arbitration committee is required here. I see many different possible problems–some addressed by the community, some not, but none beyond the community's grasp. People of good judgement disagree on many of issues raised here–does the community want to sacrifice its judgement on these questions? Ceremonial reject. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Paul August ☎ 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. FloNight 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Charles Matthews 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
Principles
Administrators
1) Wikipedia
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Automated editing
3) Various tools exist to partially or fully automate repetitive editing tasks. The
- Unsupervised automatic - User runs a bot without being in its presence
- Supervised automatic - User runs a bot and watches the edits, but does not have to interact directly
- Manually-assisted - User must confirm every change manually
Additionally, editors may use scripts to assist in performing repetitive edits. Generally, scripts require manual confirmation of each edit. Unsupervised and supervised automatic bots require approval of the BAG. Manually assisted bots and scripts may require approval if the editor anticipates making high-speed edits.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Access to automated editing tools
4) An editor who misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns about their use, may lose the privilege of using such tools.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Admin bots
5) Admins should not run bots on their sysop account that are enabled to perform sysop actions (blocking, deleting, etc) without specific community approval from
Passed 6 to 2, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Communication
7) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.
Passed 6 to 1, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Findings of fact
Automated image deletion
1) On 27 November 2006, from 17:52 to 19:43 (UTC), Betacommand used an unauthorized automated tool to delete 1,590 images ([18], [19], [20], [21]). He apparently indiscriminately deleted every image which was tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The image deletions were conducted inappropriately
2.1) Betacommand's image deletions were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment because he used an inappropriate methodology of deleting all images tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions
3) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's image deletions on
).Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate username blocks
4) Betacommand has blocked large numbers of editors for alleged violations of Wikipedia:username policy. For example, in February 2007, from 15:52, 1 February through 23:05, 27 February (UTC), Betacommand blocked approximately 1,000 editors ([43]). These blocks have attracted numerous complaints on multiple occasions ([44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). A number of Betacommand's username blocks have been overturned ([49]).
Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks
7) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's username blocks at
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Use of an automated tool to disrupt Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
8) After complaints about his username blocks on 18 February 2007 and following, Betacommand began using an automated tool that made numerous reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ([62], [63]), including several obvious violations ([64], [65], [66], [67]), giving as reason on his talk page, "Im getting tired of being bitched at for no reason. thus I am reporting VERY [sic] block to make sure the bitching stops ..." ([68]). Betacommand was blocked by Pschemp with a block summary: "refuses to stop bot reporting with this account" ([69]) and was unblocked 12 minutes later by Wangi ([70]).
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Disruption of WP:AIV
9) After concerns were raised about his automated reporting at
).Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
High-speed removal of external links
10) Beginning on 20 March 2007, Betacommand engaged in high-speed removal of external links. From 22:38, 20 March, through 4:35, 21 March (UTC), he removed 418 external links ([76]); from 14:16, 21 March through 17:34 (UTC), he further removed 2,121 external links ([77], [78], [79], [80], [81]). Beginning at 13:16, 21 March, the link removals were criticized at
On 23 March, from 13:15 through 15:29 (UTC), Betacomand removed 104 external links ([83]) which was again criticized at ANI ([84]), as well as Betacommand's reliance on this survey identifying "doorway domains" for spam. The rapid removal of external links raised concerns that Betacommand was using an unauthorized automated tool on his main account, and also that he was removing links so rapidly that he did not have, or take, time enough to determine if the links were valid.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate link removals
11) Many links were removed inappropriately. For example, Betacommand classified as "spam" all links to the
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The link removal was conducted inappropriately
12) Betacommand's removal of external links was conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment for the following reasons:
- he used an automated tool to edit with bot-like speed from an account that did not have a bot flag;
- his automated tool was still under development ([90]) and made large numbers of mistakes ([91], [92]), including breaking templates ([93], [94]) breaking list formatting ([95], [96]), leaving empty sections ([97], [98]), and deleting categories and inter language links ([99], [100]);
- he used an inappropriate methodology of identifying as spam, all links to web sites listed as having a "spam percentage" above a certain percent, according to a "study" by WebmasterWorld as reported here ([101], [102]); and
- links were removed indiscriminately without checking to see whether some of the links were appropriate in context.
Passed 8 to 1, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals
13) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's link removals at
). Betacommand was generally unresponsive to the above editors, ignoring many, giving curt replies to others and generally failing to adequately address the editorial concerns being raised.Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
History of inappropriate blocks
14) Betacommand has a history of inappropriate blocks. These include:
- 21 October: Betacommand's first block came 34 minutes after being made an administrator. After noticing that ), saying that the template additions were valid, and the editor should not have been blocked. The editor, subsequently unblocked by Betacommand, has not edited since.
- 21 December: Without warning or prior discussion, Betacommand blocked long-time established editor ).
- 26 February: Betacommand blocked ). Chuprynka has not edited since being unblocked.
- 26 March: Betacommand reverted the removal of a notability tag at ), Betacommand unblocked Jaakobou.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
History of poor judgment
15) Several past incidents demonstrate that Betacommand has a history of poor judgment:
- His semi-automated ().
- His semi-automated ().
- His removal of over 6,500 self-links at high-speed, ([145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161]), caused many instances of loss of desired bolding, for example in the first occurrence of a page title ([162], [163], [164], [165], [166]) and in taxoboxes ([167], [168]), and drew complaints ([169], [170]).
- His unprotection of 171 editor's user pages ([171], [172] drew complaints ([173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]).
- His edits related to Template:Deletedpage ([180]) drew complaints ([181]).
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Remedies
Betacommand desysopped
4) Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee.
Passed 9 to 0, 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)