Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Non-party statements before the case was accepted

Statement by completely uninvolved badlydrawnjeff

AnonEMouse (talk · contribs)'s synopsis was very articulate, and I second the need for further action. I have not had much, if any, interaction with Betacommand, but felt compelled to consider compiling evidence for ArbCom for a case following the blocking issue this morning. In the time it took me to think about it, it only appeared to get worse.

There's a point where the community has to stop being forgiving of the same dangerous transgressions. If this was one or two isolated incidents, I wouldn't care much more than keeping a close eye. But at a certain point, we have to say enough is enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen's "flip flopping"

What we're looking for here is some sort of binding resolution to repeated, ongoing issues. It's one thing to let it go when it happens once and ceases when prompted, but this is an ongoing series of events that use up a significant amount of volunteer time to sort out and repair after repeated requests for the activity to cease. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup by ElC

[RE:Mel]
On the contrary: on the face of it, a simple error involving mistaken dates (corrected 15 minutes later). El_C 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) [RE:Bc]

I've blocked ~10 users in one minute before. It merely involves having multiple windows/tabs open and then executing the blocks in succession. El_C 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How many of the 10 were yourself, though? Bishonen | talk 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Heh, yeah, exactly. El_C 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, it appears there is a pattern of improper blocks; or at least a strong likelihood. El_C 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

It seems to me that there are three, quite separate, issues here which should be considered on their own merits:

1. The running of an unauthorised bot to remove external links. I freely admit to knowing very little about this, as I know next to nothing about the technical side of Wikipedia editing, but it evidently caused some disruption and bad feeling. I make no judgement as to whether the ArbCom should scrutinise this issue but it seems to me that it could be beneficial to have some guidance from the Committee on the role of bot developers.
2. The blocking of a user involved in a tag-team edit war, following a request for intervention on AN/I. The intervention was requested, Betacommand's action was documented and the user was warned by Betacommand not to edit war but chose to ignore the warning, hence the block. This seems to me to be a reasonable application of WP:3RR's statement that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (italics in original). I don't believe there is a substantive issue on this point at least, since it's a principle which the Committee has already endorsed.
3. The rapid unrequested blocking of a number of other users, as documented by Chrislk02. Again I make no judgement as to whether this was inappropriate, though I think ElC's explanation above is very plausible - certainly I've carried out speedy deletions at "bot-like speeds" using Firefox's tabbed browsing feature (having reviewed the articles first, of course). I think this is something that could indicate abuse but doesn't automatically indicate it. I don't see unambiguous evidence in Chris's history of bot use to carry out mass blocking, though I'm absolutely not ruling out the possibility that such evidence exists.

I hope this helps to focus the discussion on the matter. -- ChrisO 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Nick

External Links are a total fuck up on Wikipedia, if you think removing a few thousand in one go is some freakish, monsterous action, it's not. We've got 8,000 links being added every single day in the mainspace alone (we don't have the CPU and bandwidth to look through user and article talk space for spamming).

Removal isn't this stab in the dark process Chrislk02 makes it out to be, there are a number of users who make use of tools provided by Eagle_101, Beetstra, Shadow1, me and Betacommand himself to target spammers operating on English Wikipedia, on other Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites. There are going to be a lot more blocked accounts and IP addresses with just 1 or 2 spamming edits because we now know they are doing the same on 50+ Wikimedia sites and unless people start looking at this information, they're going to be making uneducated decisions when it comes to unblocking users and condemning other administrators actions.

Even with all these wonderful tools, there's just no way to go through all these external links (especially those added already) and it's necessary to start mass deletions from time to time. Jimbo has even decided some sites need to be blacklisted. Betacommand isn't misusing his tools intentionally, if he's even misusing his tools at all, it's through sheer enthusiasm. -- Nick ^t 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also come to my attention that Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, listed various usernames previously blocked by Betacommand over at WP:RFCN, invited commentary (including himself and frequently Met Etitis) before proceeding to close these RFCN requests a few hours later, permitting the usernames and unblocking the accounts. Personally, I think Chrislk02 should have recused himself from even listing the usernames given his past history (self admitted on his userpage) with Betacommand, and should certainly have not resorted to both listing usernames, commenting on his belief of the inappropriateness of username block, closing the RFCN and then unblocking the user, and I think this is just as alarming a breach of administrator judgement as anything I've seen here today from Betacommand. I certainly think there's something more alarming going on here and the behaviour of Chrislk02 (especially), Mel and others is certainly well below that which I would expect from fellow administrators, I've had to raise an objection with Chrislk02 already today over this issue where he failed to comment on WP:ANI that he was not discussing a current, ongoing issue (this, I believe lead to the totally out of process block by Mel today) and personally, I've precious little faith left in them at this time, Chrislk02 especially, but also in Mel, as in addition to Betacommand, we've got Chrislk02 running around either inadvertently or deliberately misleading the community, improperly running RFCN and we've got Mel going around blocking a fellow admin without bothering to look into his contributions or recent activity log to confirm what is being said on WP:ANI is correct and hasn't been tampered with. -- Nick ^t 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Betacommand has performed "ordinary", not bot-related, bad blocks, which haven't been mentioned so far, at least I can't find them above. The worst example I know of is his block of Irpen in December 2006, which was very widely criticized by the community. A misuse of the block button which ignored every rule in the book and put an unjustified smear in the block log of a hardworking content contributor. See these links to discussions on ANI and on Betacommand's talkpage:

• User:Irpen blocked for 48 hours, please review, opened 22 December 2006 by Bishonen (me). See also this discussion of the block on Betacommand's talkpage, note Betacommand's poor response.
• Here is a more recent ANI discussion of some other dubious blocks , opened by Irpen 27 Feb 2007.

Statement by user:Irpen

While I strongly considered that the conduct of this user needs to be addressed by an ArbCom, I was never able to overcome my natural unwillingness to initiate and participate in another unpleasant process. But since this case is already in the works, I think I should add to it. From what I have observed, Betacommand has been continuously showing a highly unbecoming attitude towards other users. I will only mention three instances.

On December 22, 2006 Betacommand was one of several users who organized (over IRC) the now infamous block of Giano, that very block that triggered the whole IRC controversy that the current arbitrators remember well. What was truly behind this block was an IRC conversation, whose log the ArbCom members have seen, and hopefully remember. To remind, this is about:

<Betacommand> I need to issue a npa warning to an editor but I am Involved in a dispute with said user

...

<Chairboy> Remember, he's a wikilawyer, you need to get a clean kill...

This IRC organized block was discussed all around and is remembered well enough to elaborate further. But there is more to it.

This event took place, on the very next day after Betacommand blocked Irpen (myself) for 48 hours maliciously claiming an NPA policy out of thin air. The block was instituted not only without warning but without even notification in the hit and run manner. The outcry of both these blocks was huge. Some threads related to this can be found here, here and here. Betacommand was approached several times about the blocks of Irpen and Giano but Betacoomand refused to answer and in response to this inquiry Betacomand simply "archived" both threads at his talk related to the matter [1], [2]. What makes these blocks especially appalling is the rock-solid evidence of their being set up by Betacommand (and some others) behind the curtain.

Also, on February 26, 2007, Betacommand blocked for no reason users Hillock65 (talk · contribs) and Chuprynka (talk · contribs) (both were unblocked, discussion here) demonstrating one more time a highly dismissive attitude to the seriousness of the issue of blocking established editors.

After all the criticism of his past blocks, I hoped that Betacommand learned something about the danger of careless use of the block button and I could not believe my eyes when I saw one more Betacommand block thread at ANI today.

His blocks were discussed (and overturned) so many times at WP:ANI that I thought he should have drawn some conclusions. Apparently he did not and I think it is time for ArbCom to step in on Betacommand's conduct. --Irpen 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IRC excerpt above is completely without context and your description of the block is very inaccurate. If you'd like to take that to arbcom, do so as a separate matter. Your above text is inappropriate, wrong, and does not reflect the actual sequence of events. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism is not backed up by any evidence and is just empty talk. Feel free to add the info if you want to try to show that when the full context is given, your and Betacommand's actions will look less appalling. You can write your own statement to this matter. Also note that threaded talk is not allowed in arbcom statements. Please do not try to mess it up by inserting your comments here and there. --Irpen 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Clerk needed: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought that a party's "views" were his or her own, and no one gets to jump in to "rebut" them or protest them. The comments by Chairboy should probably be moved (with a link) to an "other views" or "talk" page. Geogre 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Clerk note: You are correct and I apologize for the oversight, as this should have been refactored at the time, but I'm not sure there is much point to moving things around now, two weeks later. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev

Betacommand repeatedly did two things that should be a no-no for an admin:

• He run an automatic script that used an admin account (admin-bot) and had not gone through the WP:RFA process. This is potentially damaging for the project if the bot malfunctions. Additionally the admin account was his own. Thus, the other admins were reluctant to block it and the damage was larger than if the account was a designated bot.
• He blocked established productive users in haste, without a proper decorum, with insufficient effort to solve the problem without blocking and without proper accounting for the blocks.

Since both violations were done repeatedly I think it is an arbcom matter Alex Bakharev 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Kelly Martin

There is no need for this arbitration case; it is a witchhunt, plain and simple. Betacommand has already acknowledged his most recent error, and his other offenses are all old news being dragged up for the sole purpose of creating additional drama. There is no need for sanctions; he clearly understands his mistake and is very unlikely to repeat it. If anyone needs sanctioning here, it is the people above who are beating up Betacommand while he's down (and, perhaps, the people responsible for making articles about Middle Eastern topics such a minefield, but I doubt this ArbCom has either the fortitude or the wisdom to do that effectively). Kelly Martin (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Doc

No view on most of this, but please don't let's go over a block from December. We've been there, done that. Vendettas are unsightly.--Doc^g 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Chacor

This comment is in response to Kelly above:

He also admitted and acknowledged his prior mistakes. And still committed them again. I think an ArbCom case had been in the works. Betacommand knew about his behaviour, he has an RFC open, and yet continued to make controversial blockings and edits, arguably (depends who you believe) with a bot. I support this request. – Chacor 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gandoman

The concerns that have been raised at WP:ANI about Betacommand have been in relation to different actions: deletion of images, deletion of external links, blocking of inappropriate usernames and other blocks. However, I believe that the underlying issue has been the same in each case: that Betacommand has been performing controversial editorial and administrative actions without discussing them first, often very quickly and in large numbers. When questioned about this afterwards, he often gives very terse and inadequate explanations [3] [4], and refuses to stop these actions even if several uninvolved users ask him to do so.

Also, an issue that has not been covered in the above summaries is the use of edit summaries. Betacommand seems to use generic edit summaries that are the same in each case. For example, all his external link removals had an edit summary of "removing inappropriate link per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NOT", even if all of these policies were not applicable in all of the cases. When blocking users for inappropriate usernames, the block reason was "Please read our username policy and choose another username", leaving no explanation as to what exactly was wrong with the username. The result of this is that other editors are left guessing and might choose to revert what looks like an unjustified deletion or block, leading to conflicts that could have been avoided if the specific reasoning for each action had been provided. Betacommand has been asked to provide more specific reasoning earlier [5] [6]. It would be much easier if Betacommand used block/edit summaries that are tailored to each specific case, instead of a generic stock phrase. Gandoman 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ram-Man

I wanted to add to the comments by User:AnonEMouse. I am a member of the bot approvals group. Many of the issues surrounding Betacommand have to do with bot related issues, since he was a member of the BAG. We were responding mainly to AN/I, BN, and other reports that Betacommand was misusing bots, in particular running a controversial task using a script/bot from his main user account and qustionable use of his bot account as well. The result of those allegations can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#Betacommand. Basically we stripped Betacommand of his BAG membership for violation of bot policy (and other offenses) and forced him to resubmit all of his bot requests for approval. See here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot. In terms of the jurisdiction of the bot approvals group, we consider this case to be closed with respect to the offenses that we found and documented. Since much of this request for arbitration deals with the use of his bots and/or scripts, we wanted to make it very clear that this aspect of dispute resolution has been accomplished and Betacommand has been officially sanctioned by BAG and the community involved in the decision. It is important to note that we remain neutral on other aspects of possible community sanction, such as removal of adminship, as this lies outside our jurisdiction, however as a collective group, we believe that Betacommand should be given the opportunity to learn from these mistakes and to continue to provide very useful edits through his use of bots and main user edits. I personally do not want this to turn into a witchhunt, and only ask for care to be taken in this. (For disclosure/information, Betacommand was recently blocked due to a misunderstanding over the dates of his inappropriate blocking of other users, and I unblocked him. See Betacommand's statement for more information.)-- RM 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by Chick Bowen: While lately automated bots or scripts wishing to use admin privledges have gone through an RfA, the consensus seems to be that bot/scripts are, in general, unpopular and have limited community approval, although approval it is possible. Even if your point is correct, running an automated and perhaps a semi-automated script falls under the jurisdiction of the bot approvals group oversight, and the BAG defers to the community judgement as policy: the bots must go through both an RfA and a bot approvals process to be approved, so some policy exists. However, there are unclear grey lines between "automated", "semi-automated", "manually assisted", and "web browser". Betacommand used a "semi-automated" admin script for his latest edits. Perhaps the arbitration can clarify how much jurisdiction bot policy has over bots or scripts that are not fully automated, but specific context generally matters most here. -- RM 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mets501

I would just like to say as another member of the bot approvals group that dispute resolution with regards to bot misuse have been successful, as Ram-Man stated above. —METS501 (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryanpostlethwaite

This request has not been submitted for a single lapse in an administrators judgement, but over a couple of months Betacommand has, despite numberous warnings and threads on AN/I(here, here and here) and an Rfc regarding usernames blocks, continued to misuse his tools. Each of these lapses on their own are certainly forgiveable, but together, they merit a continued trend of misuse of administrator privilages with regards to blocked and genereal conduct with regards to removing spam links which is unlikeley to stop as all these incidents took place within the last 6 weeks. If there had been no Rfc open for betacommand, I would certainly have suggested going down that road, but as this route has been taken, and still there are servere issues being rasied over his administration, I feel an arbitration request is appropriate Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen by Ryanpostlethwaite

The community have attempted to sort these issues, but the scope is too large to do so without arbcom hearing this matter. As I previously said, if there were just one or two cases, then we could resolve it ourselves, and betacommand could have taken our judgement, but there have been too many incidents now, post Rfc, that can not be resolved without higher involvement. AN/I conversations have talked about community desysoppings, but this cannot be done without arbcom involvement. Whatever the outcome, it will make betacommand finally listen to the serious concerns raised Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ral315

In light of recent issues, I (as an uninvolved user) briefly considered initiating another RFC in regard to Betacommand's actions, including his bot issues but also his inability to determine what is a correct block, both in conduct and in usernames. I also point to community discussion that seems in favor of moving this case further. I'm unsure as to what such a case should find, but I do believe that opening this case is in the best interests of the community, if for no other reason than to get clearer interpretations of bot policy and violations thereof. Ral315 » 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Although I have no opinion on the substance of this request, I urge the Committee to accept it. AnonEMouse is correct in estimating that community-based response options are not well suited to this situation. Both the complexity of the problems and the possibility of desysopping are best left to ArbCom. This case may set precedents regarding bot-related user issues. Durova^Charge! 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Chick Bowen

• My (minimal) involvement: Some months ago, in an off-wiki conversation about still-ongoing attempts to improve or replace Template:Deletedpage, I expressed to Betacommand my view that running a one-time script on an admin account to make necessary mass edits to permanently protected pages (in this case, pages protected with the {{deletedpage}} template) was justifiable, as it fell under ordinary admin maintenance, not content editing.
• There has never been a consensus-approved policy stating that an admin-bot must run through RFA. This convention was begun when Jimbo asked Tawker to run his TOR-blocking bot through RFA, and others have followed suit since, but since that process has resulted in nothing but confusion and unnecessary rancor over this issue, it has to be considered a colossal failure.
• Given the situation, I continue to have no problem with admins running bot scripts on their own accounts, assuming that those scripts do not make content edits and that they do not do anything controversial. Otherwise there is simply no way to perform certain necessary maintenance functions. Deletedpage, for example, will be replaced with WP:PT at some point (I hope very soon), and automated edits will be necessary to make that happen.
• I cannot comment on any other aspects of this case, since I am not familiar with them. Chick Bowen 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by totally disinterested Giano

What on earth would be the point of accepting this case. Everyone knows Beattacommand lied on IRC to have me banned, and has behaved deplorably - but to raise the point would just be yet another opportunity for Fred to come up with some more harebrained schemes proposing beheading half the witnesses, and Tony Sidaway to run riot with his usual cacophony of manic postings. These "Fred and Tony Shows" with Arbs chopping and changing their opinions are becoming far too repetitive and tedious for words. If accepted I will be taking it off my watch list. Giano 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wooyi

The ArbCom should take the case and take strong action against Betacommand due to his actions. Although I like the idea of automatic filtering of usernames, he acted in a highly irresponsible and reckless manner that he ran blocking bot on his admin account. If we want to filter usernames, do it on registration process to prevent registration of bad usernames instead of blocking them. If I was a newbie and got blocked mistakenly for usernames, I would never go to Wikipedia again. If an expert has the same real name as a past vandal's name and got blocked, he would be so sad and probably would start to attack Wikipedia for that. He also acted inappropriatedly in doing this. At least, Betacommand should be dysysopped. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Nick

If it were appropriate to remove every single link to Google Groups or Yahoo or whatever from the encyclopedia, those sites would also be on the m:spam blacklist. They are not, and some of the removals were destructive to the encyclopedia. Authorization to add sites to the spam blacklist is not given lightly because of the sweeping consequences that it has. Betacommand in effect misappropriated that authority. 64.160.39.153 07:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)