Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand

Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry

Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, I noticed an edit that drew my curiosity. [1]. I mentioned it later to MBisanz, and, we discussed whom it may be. After going over the contribs, it became obvious to us, that it was Betacommand. The account talked the same way, and, even made a mistake or two. After discussing this for a couple hours, we came to the conclusion, that it was likely a sockpuppet, and, was being used at least [here to participate in an edit war, and skirt WP:3RR. So, we decided to get the opinion of a checkuser, Dmcdevit, whom confirmed for us that the two accounts were likely the same. It is with a heavy heart, and much disappointment today, that I ask for a sanity check, on an indefinite block on Betacommand (and associated socks), for prolonged sockpuppetry, and incivility. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this findings and have performed the blocks. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. But what about Beta's bot(s)? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is blocked along with the other accounts, I have removed its rollback rights. The Bot right is inoperative due to the direct account block. MBisanz ^talk 07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are blocked, and will be deflagged soon. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the CheckUser findings. The match is extremely conclusive, and it is unlikely to be possible that it is anyone else. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should roll back the thousands of bot edits to DEFAULTSORTs he just made with his main account, a considerable number of which were clearly incorrect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't do harm, do not mess with them. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the one (hybridism) I looked at, I believe it is a MediaWiki bug where leading spaces don't work in DEFAULTSORT. I mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 6#DEFAULTSORT with spaces; I'm not sure if it's been listed on MediaWiki's bugzilla. --NE2 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than that. [2] [3] He just went through and set a DEFAULTSORT on anything whose categories ~~are all currently sorted the same~~ currently share the same sort key or none, even based on a small number of examples with sort keys. (And even if the sort key was the special case " ".) I found two of these mistakes in a cursory check of 25 contributions, and again, he did thousands of these. These are going to subtly mess up category pages for months or years unless we mass revert. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it also ignored categories with no sortkey. I remember AWB used to do that, but it was fixed a while ago. I definitely support the reverting. --NE2 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, I will be able to help revert the additions. Let me know if it is needed. Nakon 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems correct. Ordinarily it would be sufficient to merely block the sockpuppet accounts and make clear that he must restrict himself to one, but Betacommand has a long history of poor behavior, so I think the block should be of significant length and possibly indefinite. Everyking (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why indefinite? A year seems like forever enough, without being forever forever, if you know what I mean. Hesperian 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Beta is/was a determinedly nasty user IMO, and if they'd be willing to wait a year, the chances are they'll create socks before the year's up! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is why he wasn't blocked a year ago. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that, don't talk down about someone whom can't respond, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a point there. It may have sounded more like an attack because of the way I hastily worded it, unfortunately. (It's hard to really think through edits at the moment, with all the edit conflicts.) The point was we've seen that a year passing is not enough to stop Betacommand from causing disruption. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support an indefinite block if he responds to this appropriately, but I still think it needs to be a while. He's got quite a history. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely he could never be trusted enough to use a bot account for a long period of time. I would certainly only suppot unblocking after one-to-three months should there be a restriction limiting Betacommand to one account only, and that would obviously mean no bot accounts. Given the contentious nature of his use of bots in the past, coupled with the sockpuppetry, I would regretfully support such a restriction should it be proposed if he is unblocked anytime in the near future. Daniel (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. I never expected this. Presuming this is correct, if Betacommand owns up to the sockpuppets and says how many there were, and apologises for any abuse, and limits himself to one account (permanently) and no bots (for a longer period of time, but not indefinite), I would probably support an eventual (though not immediate) unblock. I do remember him saying that he had another account that he was intending to switch to, but if he was using an alternate account abusively, that is never acceptable. I do hope we hear something from Betacommand at some point, though. His bot pages and talk pages do need to be kept, regardless of what eventually happens. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's edit to the bot policy page as Quercus appears to have been made during the course of a session of rc patrol using huggle. It is not inconceivable that the edit might have been an honest mistake caused by being too rash to use the proper account. Edits under the Quercus account appear limited to rc patrol, awb formatting edits, and a few trivial afd votes (with no double voting under the betacommand account). Now I've had my share of disagreements with Betacommand's actions, but this appears to be a relatively benign, if undisclosed, alternate account. Block the sock, there's no dire need to shut down the main account immediately and indefinitely. Suspicions of sockpuppet activity should at least be disclosed to the suspect to offer an opportunity for admission or explanation before the matter is escalated to an AN/I notice and block. As for the defaultsort tagging, well, I'm not too surprised. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

The defaultsort bot edits, for one, were completely hypocritical (considering how strongly he insisted that nobody could run a bot without the BAG's approval, by which he generally meant his own approval). Also, his running of an unapproved bot because it seemed like a good idea to him at the time is a kind of abuse that he had done before, reluctantly apologized for, and promised not to do again. (In particular, I'm referring to when he spammed the main page history to "prevent it from being deleted"). It's also not very credible to defend his sockpuppet's reverting of the bot policy (a significant dispute that he is involved in) as an "honest mistake". How many more apologies and second chances would you give him? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever apologizing for Betacommand and I do take issue with his reckless automated tagging. There's a difference between not trusting him with a bot, or even administrative tools for that matter, and blocking his main account outright before he's had a chance to respond. If the edit to the bot policy was an accident then it was a monumentally stupid mistake - but an understandable one. I'm just not seeing indisputable evidence of malicious sockpuppeteering. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have any particular animosity towards this user but every other week there's a big heap of drama surrounding this user. He doesn't seem to want to operate according to the same rules we're all expected to follow. One or two or even three issues, okay, I can see a short block. But history has shown that short blocks have accomplished nothing. A one year block will accomplish nothing. If this was anyone other than the person in question, they would have been indef blocked eons ago and long forgotten. I'm sorry to say this but in the end, when someone cuases this much disruption to the project and even goes so far as to use a blatantly abusive sockpuppet, it's time to end the drahmaz. Like upper management everywhere says: nobody is irreplaceable. And that's how it should be. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wait a moment people. I haven't yet seen evidence here that he was using the second account abusively. Double voting? Taking part in the same debates? (other than apparently by accident, as SQL seemed to be saying.) Faking an impression of larger support for an opinion? Those are the definition of abusive sockpuppetry. In the case of a high-profile account with lots of enemies, as Betacommand always was, an attempt at branching out part of his activities into a secondary account may be well on the side of legitimate secondary account usage. Before people (especially those with old grudges) rush to get Betacommand sanctioned here, I for one would like to see a more thorough discussion. It is indicative of the lynchmob atmosphere that is about to be forming here how Rspeer above jumped in calling for mass rollbacks of a series of edits – while those may well have been of questionable value, there is absolutely no evidence they were done in bad faith, and even less they had anything to do with abusive sockpuppetry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. Do you disagree that the mass rollbacks need to be done? Do you consider it good faith for a guy who goes on profanity-laden rants against anyone who suggests that bots can run without approval to run an unapproved bot? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not anyone go on mass-rollback sprees. Many of these edits are correct and useful; many more are harmless. My brain's fried enough that I need something mindless to do for a while; I'm willing to take responsibility for checking all 5000+ of them. —Cryptic 09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If we assume an honest mistake was made, there is no violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Bot_policy. I count three.[4][5][6] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to all above) If you edit war on [[Page X]] with two different accounts, the burden is on you to self-revert the edit by the second account if it was an accident. If it wasn't an accident, then it's abusive sockpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm kinda disappointed he didn't (but I can understand that he doesn't want to draw attention on an alternate account). After a quick look, I see one instance where both users edited the same page (the instance everyone is discussing: rv1 rv2). Are there any other instances where that happened? (It could be a "oh crap I forgot to log out my alternate account" instance if it only happened once). A block could be in order (even if there is no 3RR violation, which makes me uncomfortable in this case). But indef? Seriously? I see grudges here (Or I'm gonna be much more harsh when patrolling WP:RFCU)... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In any case, an immediate indef block on the main account, before discussion here had even properly begun, and before BC had a chance to even respond, was way way premature. Blocks are preventative, there's no danger in waiting at least until the guy can tell us his side of the story. If I don't hear a good reason why we need him blocked now, I'm going to unblock in a couple minutes pending further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object, it is well known that Betacommand has special technical tools that can edit up to 700 times per minute. Given the ironclad nature of the CU confirm, he can request unblock in the normal manner. MBisanz ^talk 07:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block was appropriate. He can request an unblock like everyone else. Considering some of the recent mass edits, we should be thankful that the block was made quickly. Enigma ^message 08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Is abuse of sockpuppets not enough? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. I'm not at all 'proud' or 'happy' about this situation, but, let us wait until we hear beta's side of the story, PLEASE. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came out wrong, was responding to future perf SQL ^{Query me!} 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not indefinite, but going around the bot policy with a sock is a blockable offense. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indef block. Abusing sock puppets is awful for anyone to do, especially an experienced user like Beta. I would strongly disagree with any premature unblock and I would highly recommend against unblocking at this point. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also object - he has just been through arbcom, let them handle this and the use of an unapproved bot on the main account (see ANI) Viridae ^Talk 08:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may gasp and faint at the idea of anything good coming out of CSN, but bear with me: one of its best practices was to offer blocked users a chance to participate in sanctions discussions: we used a template to transclude a statement from the editor's talk page to the general thread. It was usually helpful but I'm no coder, so would somebody graft that template for use over here please? I'd like to hear Betacommand's side of this. If there's a rational explanation he'd be the best one to provide it. Durova^Charge! 08:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do people think the minimum/maximum block should be? Maybe that would be useful to establish. I say min 18 months, max indefinite, as now. —TreasuryTag—t—c

Sentence first, verdict afterward? Durova^Charge! 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova I've transcluded the non-template part of Betacommand's talk page below. His comments will appear there if/when he makes them. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea, only messes things up and leads to confusion. If people want to chat to BC, they should be using his talk page; if we want to hear BC's view here, we should unblock him and let him edit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a chat though, is it? It's a ban discussion and his neck's on the chopping block. Please approach this with an open mind: if someone is banned for abusive socking do you think it's more or less likely that the socking would end if the person gets the boot without a meaningful way to present a defense? Durova^Charge! 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who keeps saying the chopping block was carried in a bit early. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when an editor uses the opportunity well it sometimes sways discussions. If the editor abuses it the thing's easy to disable and that also sways discussions (by making a hard choice easier). Durova^Charge! 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following edits by User:Ryulong may be relevant: [7], [8]. Ryulong also carried out the following deletions: [9], [10], presumably to avoid the creation and tagging of the page and category prejudicing the discussion. I've asked Ryulong if he would be happy to comment here on these actions. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at User talk:Nobody of Consequence is all I have to say.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in that discussion on WT:BOTS, and even when I saw the edit by Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs) in this sequence, it was obvious to me it was Beta working from one of his alternate accounts. Between the two accounts Beta did exactly three reverts, same as his opponent. Gimmetrow 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my 2c here - support block for now unless a very good reason is provided, but I am loath to support any indefinite action against a user who, despite extreme moodiness and occasional strange or vindictive behaviour, is essentially a good faith user and not here for the purposes of harming the project. Essentially concur with Daniel's view above. Orderinchaos 08:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot is now deflagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INSPECTOR (more harm than good), block him for a short time, and then block him for evey instance of incivility. This may amount to an indefinite block, but while we're all watching him (and his socks?) now is the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I recommend an RFAR. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~...assuming BC returns to defend this. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Actually, I don't. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(For the record, Confirmed Quercus basaseachicensis = Betacommand. Someone might want to have a word with him, and tell him it's going to work out better if he takes their advice on what's being asked of him in all this. This isn't really a good thing :( FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

Aside from the fact that this was obviously him (no checkuser needed), exactly how did he use this account to circumvent WP policy? He never presented or defended this account as an independent entity. How did this justify an indef block? Gimmetrow 09:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Lucas and Gimmetrow here. This is absurd, if it had been any user other then Betacommand then the main account probably wouldn't have even been blocked: it would have been asked for an explanation. This looks to me like an innocent mistake, he had an alternate account, presumably to avoid the baying wolves. I saw more restraint from the Rangers fans in Manchester on Weds night. Woody (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite - had this been any other user, I'd have blocked him without even bringing it up here, just for the unauthorized and incorrect bot edits from a non-bot account. —Cryptic 10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be wrong. Bot policy does not forbid users from running an assisted editing script from their regular user account. A script only needs bot approval if it's running in automatic mode, and otherwise maybe if its running "fast" or doing a very large number of edits. Since Beta has been doing the defsort work for a few days it's possible he's up in the "very large number" range, but it's a grey area. He's definitely not been doing the defsort edits "fast", and there are some edits where a defsort key is chosen when its not the only one present. This rather suggests he's making a choice for each one and not running in automatic mode. (He could have programmed some heuristics for an automatic decision, but I doubt it.) A new account might not get much leeway, but we do not block established users simply for running assisted scripts on their user accounts. Such edits are the responsibility of the users; if the edits are controversial the user should be approached and asked to stop, and only blocked if the user refuses. Gimmetrow 10:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through not quite 500 edits so far, and have not yet seen one where any but the first sortkey was picked; no human would approve an edit like this; and nobody can inspect and approve forty edits per minute. There is no way that this was an assisted editing script. —Cryptic 10:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he do 40 edits per minute? In the sequences I've checked, it's typically 3 to 5 edits per minute. Gimmetrow 10:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a run of 42. —Cryptic 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be using a heuristic of "if all category sort tags are the same, replace with a DEFAULTOSRT". Doesn't AWB do this anyway if you set it up that way? Seems fairly straightforward, but would be more efficient to submit a bit request and do those ones at high-speed. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno on AWB, though it should be fixed if it does it too. Where there's more than one explicit sortkey, the others are preserved correctly; but where a sortkey is omitted intentionally, it gets trampled on anyway. (Unless you accept that articles in Category:Science museums should be sorted as "Science Museum".) —Cryptic 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If it were just "if all sort tags are the same replace with defsort" it wouldn't have any effect and wouldn't be much of an issue. But in edits like this, three categories do not have sort keys, so defsort changes things. And 40 epm seems rather high, even with maxlag. Agree the defsort tagging needs its own thread, as I can see someone making an argument about aspects of it. Gimmetrow 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. I said earlier that people were forming a lynch mob, and now that mob has lynched Beta. Great. I hope you're all proud of yourselves (especially TreasuryTag, yet again there with the piano wire). ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)That was completely uncalled for, and I would ask you to justify your comment about me, remove it, strike-through it or apologise. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, this is too harsh. OK, confirmed he had alternate accounts, and the account was 'used' in edit-warring (though strictly, even in combination, there is no violation of 3RR, and I don't see any real abuse from the accounts, except the incivility). And that is now punished with indef blocks and de-botting/de-rollbacking of the bot-account, which were not involved in this. Indef the alternate account(s) (if needed, indef the bot), but I would suggest returning the flags, and to unblock the main account (so Betacommand can participate normally in this discussion). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now he's just blocked and we're holding a discussion. This is a controversial editor and it's not too surprising that a discussion is taking place. Redvers, please give reasons and evidence for your position and refrain from characterizing the people who disagree with you. The heat and speed of this discussion decreased quite a bit once the transclusion template went up; most people are waiting to hear Betacommand's side of things. Durova^Charge! 10:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still willing to unblock pending any further consensus forming here. I've told him I'll unblock as soon as he asks for it, on condition he refrains from mechanical / bot-like edits for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we usually do not ban good faith editors for the first offense of sockpuppetry. It is usually 1 week to 1 month. As this is definitely the first case and the harm is relatively minor I would suggest 1..2 weeks. Obviously sockpuppeting is incompatible with the positions of trust including his participation in BAG. Otherwise the problems with the overzealous bot writing are completely separate. I was not aware the latest surge of BCbot activities were so bad (all defaultsorts on my watchlist seem to be put correctly), we might want to deflag the bot and in future apply more scrutiny to his changes, still no need to block it permanently, IMHO. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked WP:SOCK, having an account for trivial wikignoming so that your main account does not get bogged down with edits, was acceptable - especially if you can't log on without the orange bar lighting up, as I'm sure Beta can't. You can hardly call Betacommand2 a deceptive use of an alt account. It looks to me as if animus against Beta's unfree image tagging is the major reason for blocking here, since with the exception of one edit which could be an honest mistake, there is absolutely no evidence of deception. Betacommand has 54,000 edits, an indefinite block for using trivially identifiable alt accounts hardly looks like the kind of thing to justify bannination. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly agree more Guy. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through Quercus basaseachicensis's contributions, and it does just look like an alternate account, not an abusive sockpuppet. I had thought Betacommand2 was the only alternate account. I don't see why this should be labelled a "mistake", and the only evidence that has emerged so far is the single edit to do with the edit war. If Betacommand acknowledges that was a mistake, I think we can unblock. The DEFAULTSORT stuff is a concern, and I would hope Betacommand would not do that again without testing stuff. Any human editor checking their edits would have spotted this. Anyone else reviewing a trial set of edits would have spotted this. Betacommand should have spotted this. It is good of Cryptic to offer to go through the thousands of edits and fix the ones that need fixing, but a bot would be much better suited to finding the wrong DEFAULTSORTs. See my ancient proposal (taken up by Quadell) at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 3, plus User talk:Carcharoth/Polbot3 trial run. There is a lot of biographical stuff that needs doing, but poor bot work could make things worse. It needs a lot of human oversight. Carcharoth (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that any unblock not be performed until Betacommand actually comments here (ie. on his talk page, though the transclusion doesn't seem to be working). Future Perfect's comment above seems to imply that Betacommand is talking with others about this off-wiki. This is fine, but if Betacommand respects the community, he will say something here (ie. on-wiki) as well. If he posts here and acknowledges the single inappropriate edit identified so far, I will personally unblock based on the discussion here so far. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: No, there's been no off-wiki talking that I'm aware of. I was refering simply to a talkpage note I left him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah right, sorry about that. I do tend to assume lots of off-wiki talking goes on. If anyone does chat with Betacommand off-wiki, could they ask him to respond on-wiki before any unblock? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DEFAULTSORT stuff probably needs its own thread. Betacommand doesn't seem to have been responding to conceerns raised about it. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grnngh. Hadn't realized he'd been doing it so long; obviously I'm watching entirely the wrong sort of article. (Though I'd thought it was weird that he started in the middle of the G's.) —Cryptic 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: Ever since I've known Betacommand (starting with him blocking me in one of his username-blocking bot runs), he has constantly been under fire for performing poorly thought-out bot actions (a number of which are documented in his first Arbcom case). In several cases, time-consuming mass reverts have had to be performed to clean up the damage (such as his massive removal of valid external links documented in the Arbcom case, and the current DEFAULTSORT episode). His one bot task that actually helped the encyclopedia was the image license checking feature, but that has now been taken over by other bots such as the NFCC compliance bot. This means that now, Betacommand's bot runs either do aesthetic changes that have no real advantage, or actually damage the encyclopedia. The Wikipedia community has to constantly make adaptations to ordinary processes in order to accommodate Betacommand (bending rules that would have had other editors blocked, creating a separate noticeboard for Betacommand issues, and modifying the BAG approvals process so that Betacommand would not have to pass a community request for membership that he would obviously fail). This means that large amounts of volunteer time are spent controlling Betacommand, rather than improving the encyclopedia. Based on this, combined with Betacommand's chronic incivility which has not changed at all since the first Arbcom case, I am of the opinion that Betacommand has exhausted the community's patience. At the least, he should be indefinitely prohibited from running bots. Is he back? (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very valid point. His behaviour (spec. civility issues) hasn't improved at all. If copius amounts of editors come up and say: "Hey, you're being mean!" - Surely you're gonna get the point eventually? You don't keep saying: "It's not me, it's them. They're all just nuts." - He hasn't heeded any sort of constructive criticism. I think this sock fiasco is the final straw. He knew he'd get caught. Perhaps he was relying on his allies and advocates to bail him out? Or his ability to get away with everything? I don't care how much crap he's taken for his bot, he isn't granted any special rights. If I, or anyone else for that matter, had a sock and was being naughty then I'd certainly be indef blocked. In fact, I'd support the block as a consequence of my own foolishness. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that IMO, a lot of the "crap" Betacommand received for his bot was caused by him giving poor explanations in his bot's messages, and not being willing to answer even legitimate questions about the bot, thus frustrating people who got their images tagged with "bad rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" without understanding what was the issue. When these people then asked Betacommand politely what was wrong, they got either no response or short responses like "read WP:NFCC and stop bothering me", instead of a simple explanation like "You need to link to the article where the image is used". I think that a less combative bot owner with better communication skills would have been able to run BetacommandBot without receiving a tenth of all the "harassment" Betacommand uses to justify his actions. When the bot started the task of checking images for article links, I contacted Betacommand in order to suggest a better wording of the bot's messages, but received no response. Is he back? (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite an incorrect characterisation of BC's responses. A few weeks back I went and put together a list of examples of BC responding to questions on his talk page in a perfectly acceptable manner and found (to my surprise, considering the amount of hatred for the guy) that he responds satisfactorily nine times out of ten. You know, I've never seen anyone provide diffs to back up these claims of BC being horrifically uncommunicative, whereas in about 5 minutes on his talk page I could pick out plenty of diffs that show the opposite. And to be honest, people who don't understand NFCC probably shouldn't be uploading fair use images in the first place. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really talking about indefinitely blocking an established editor over what is effectively one bad edit? Even assuming it was intentional (which we shouldn't) it seems like a bit of an over reaction. Propose lifting the block (time served) with bot rights remaining suspended pending further discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the block should be lifted. The rush to get the knives out for BC here is simply astonishing. naerii - talk 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this alternate account has been editing since October 2007. Since that timeperiod, Betacommand has been blocked on four separate occasions and experienced an RFAR. Per the good hand/bad hand account standards, how is this compatible with our Alternate Account policy? You can split up editing in areas to avoid overlap (something he hasn't done here, both accounts edit the same things), for security (thats what Betacommand2 is for), for mass edits (what BetacommandBot is for), or if your leaving one identity for a new one (but you stop editing under the old identity). Going 8 months with one account "clean" and another account under blocks, sanctions, etc, does not seem appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's response

~~[Beta's talkpage is transcluded below. When comments are made, they will appear here.]~~

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Preserved as a record of BC's userpage at the time of unblock MBisanz ^talk 14:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to start over under a new username, I was every careful to avoid editing the same pages, and the edit at WP:BOT was an accident. I think this issue has been taken far far out of context. WP:SOCKs may be blocked for being abusive, how as that sock be used abusively? see this for a listing of all overlaping pages. other than random cleanup there is no overlap except for the one error on WP:BOT β^_command 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed unblock

I'm satisifed with Betacommand's response here. If there are no substantive objections, I propose to unblock later this afternoon. I'll give it two hours from this timestamp, and I'll let the blocking admin, User:MBisanz know. Please limit replies here to how to handle any unblock and any objections. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, the block was an extreme overreaction in my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per my comment above. Guest9999 (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I don't want to rush to judgment about the rush to judgment, but perhaps it was a rush to judgment. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal request is give Betacommand a second chance, considering his good contributions. I agree he is very aggressive but not a purposeful vandal -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't give him a second chance that was done years ago. 10th perhaps?Geni 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the bot remains blocked, with its botflag removed, and he doesn't use a bot on his new account without clearing it - properly - with the BAG, no objections to an unblock. If he is attempting to start over with a new username, should the new name be unblocked, or the old one, or both? Neıl ☎ 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best step forward is an unblock for BC here. naerii - talk 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)Support unblock in manner proposed by Carcharoth, agree with Relata refero. Added: Unblock all three, request that Beta choose one. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - starting over cleanly as an established user is hard - mistakes happen, and I see no evidence of maliciousness. Wily D 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - BC may have been a casualty of ZOMG DHRAMA Week on the Wiki - is it something in the water lately? Either way, no concerns about the proposed unblock. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'll defer to the community's wishes in the unblock, although I would urge moderation along the lines Neil describes. MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, plus returning bot rights on User:BetacommandBot. The withdrawal of the bot-rights has nothing to do with this block (which was in itself an overreaction), the bot has been very useful, and still is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is he going to run poorly-thought-out and unapproved (one of the reasons for approval is to run the idea by someone else so they can point out problems) tasks, though? --Random832 (contribs) 14:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The bot policy is crystal clear:

“

Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval... A block may also be issued if a bot process operates... logged in to an account other than its own

”

I think we've established that an edit series running at fourty two edits per minute is not a manually-supervised script. This is BetacommandBot operating on an unauthorised, unflagged account, in clear violation of bot policy; for which the bot may be blocked indefinitely, never mind for a few days. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblocking User:Betacommand, or whichever single account Betacommand wishes to edit from for the time being. Conditional on the other accounts remaining blocked for the time being, and BCB remaining unflagged until we've sorted out this mess. Happy‑melon 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agree with Happy-melon, I mean are we seriously going to condone this type of behavior from him when he has so clearly had a track history of abuse? If the other account wants to be unblocked than it needs to go through BAG like everyone else, just because it is BC does not mean he does not have to fallow the rules. I will only support a unblock if certain terms are met like Neil describes above. Tiptoety ^talk 14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Re Happy-melon: Yes, he was running a script, probably botwise on his own account, as he has done before. But that was not what this block was about, nor was BetacommandBot used for that (and if this was an automated script, then still; loading 40 pages and hitting "Save page" 40 times in a minute might be possible). Hence I suggest unblocking Betacommand for this so-called sockpuppetry, and returning the bot-flags to BetacommandBot. If there is an issue with these edits, then that is a separate issue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he's only had more than five edits per minute six times (I've only looked at edits April 20 and later): six at 17:11, 15 May 2008; six at 18:07, 15 May 2008; six at 19:17, 15 May 2008; eight at 19:49, 15 May 2008; fifteen at 19:40, 15 May 2008; and forty-two at 19:39, 15 May 2008. Even stretching WP:AGF to the breaking point, though, there's runs of dozens of harmful edits in a row, all harmful in the same way; if this is a manually-approved script, he's not competent to run it. A generous estimate is 10% of these edits being useful; 70% harmless; and 20% actively harmful. I think blocking him for the alternate account was probably an overreaction, but can't condone allowing him to continue like this. —Cryptic 14:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the DEFAULTSORT edits need to stop. Some really bad ones there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - As MBisanz has replied (I've also discussed on his talk page), and there has been a lot of replies above, I'm bringing forward the unblock point. I'm only going to unblock Betacommand (the main account). There is a lot of other stuff that needs doing (pages undeleted and bot flags possibly returned), and at least two alternate accounts to consider. I'm going to let others handle that, and I suggest this is done on the basis of the case Betacommand himself makes for what should be done. In other words, an unblock based on this discussion and Betacommand's explanation, and to allow Betacommand to present his case about the other accounts and the bot account and flag. I'll still be around for another few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand has a long history of violations of policy, including assumption of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. This case of sockpuppetry is merely the tip of the iceberg. An arbitration case concerning his behaviour closed about one month ago, with no actionable remedies, though one remedy indicated that "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time" if Betacommand did not improve his conduct. I would only support an unblock if such a review takes place, leading to actionable sanctions against Betacommand. The way we handle misconduct by Betacommand reminds me of a political cartoon from a source-based question in a History exam I took, which shows a dictator walking on a road with signs that say "WARNING", followed by "LAST WARNING", then "ABSOLUTELY FINAL WARNING" and subsequently...you get the idea. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say no to an unblock - on the basis of once again violating bot policy and the recent incivility (see RfArb talk page). This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae ^Talk 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support requesting the ArbCom to take up that further review and oppose the return of bot flags for the time being. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. I've now unblocked the main account, as I said, because Betacommand's explanation satisfied me and because there was only one instance of possible abuse. Predictably, people are now opposing since I left this thread. Still, I've left the bot account and the two alternate accounts blocked. I think it is only fair that Betacommand be allowed to participate here to present his case concerning the other accounts. There is still a lot of tidying up and discussion needed (I may have forgotten to do some of the stuff needed after an unblock), but that will have to be for others to do. I'll be around for the next few hours if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unblock is appropriate. Also, I dont think that this needs to go to arbcom again. I would like to see Betacommand agree to not run a bot for a month, and to steer clear of bot related discussion. The suggested break is in order to let the dust settle, and to start things back on the right foot when he does request to run bot tasks as before. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be watched closely, he's been warned multiple times. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the matter is that this sockpuppetry hasn't been disruptive enough to warrant a block in itself. Other factors have obviously motivated this block, but the decision to block should be left to the community, or possibly be deferred to Arbcom. So I support the unblock, but this business isn't going to stop. Cenarium (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose the unblock, as long as the "further review" by ArbCom takes place and we stop giving Betacommand infinite "last chances". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be long winded. the reaction and actions taken by some admins was uncalled for. what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs. β^_command 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sound of that. I think those two tasks, and any others which maintain specific pages in the project namespace, should be left running as suggested by Betacommand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do be long-winded. Reasonable concerns about the DEFAULTSORT edits have been raised. It would be helpful if you were to address them. The chance of your bot being unblocked, and no new arbcom case being opened, is directly proportional to the clarity and frankness of your replies. So far, I'd give ~~you~~them poor marks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a detailed response about the DEFAULTSORT edits would be useful at some point, above BC committed to a 30 day break from running any but the most mundane and non-controversial of bot tasks. Also, he would need to request BAG to run any new bot tasks, and I expect BAG would be very cautious in what tasks they approved BCB from now on, especially as BAG members were party to this block. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his latest Arbcom case, more precisely "(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;" (my emphasis) Is he back? (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also recently violated the civility conditions as well. This needs to go back to arbcom. Viridae ^Talk 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand how the fresh start rule applies here, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.

Even under it, you only get one account at a time. MBisanz ^talk 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written section, hastily cobbled together in response to ArbCom's setting of policy in the PrivateMusings case. It is merely advisory. And I really don't know who sees repeated switching as "improper", like socks with sandals. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No "start over" can be appropriate here. BC is nearing a community ban, after years of unhelpful conduct that has failed to improve. Starting over under a new account to escape well-deserved scrutiny is not a sensible option. Friday (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he remains in good standing, he is entirely free to do exactly as he pleases about a new account. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it good standing to be under an ArbCom remedy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the question is if his attitude will improve if he's no longer facing the wrath of image uploaders? If BC chooses to "start over" and focus on editing alone, without the drama his bots create, I see no harm in it. I'm certain various admins will be aware of his new identity, so while he might start with a clean slate, his new identity will still face the scrutiny his ... aggressive ... past has earned him. Reso lute 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as long as both users contributions don't overlap, there is nothing preventing a user to have an alternate account. The way I read the "avoid scrutiny" part of WP:SOCK is when both users are used to do things that would raise questions if done by a single account. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been facing image uploaders for months (thankfully). It hasn't really helped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that Betacommand can get away with all of this? He was desysopped in his first ArbCom case for bot abuse, yet continues to abuse bots, and nothing happens. He was instructed by ArbCom to remain civil, continues to be incivil, yet noone could be bothered to do anything. Now we have sockpuppetry, and he can still get away with it. Seriously guys, what would Betacommand need to do to get blocked? When will you draw the line? How much more obvious does it need to get that Betacommand is unwilling to comply with anything or cooperate with anyone? A ecis^Brievenbus 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a nice cup of tea and read the thread? Many people here don't think this is abusive sockpupetry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is chocolate milk okay as well? ;) I read the thread, that's what had me baffled and caused my reaction. How many more second chances/final warnings are we gonna give him? A ecis^Brievenbus 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock BetacommandBot

I propose to unblock BetacommandBot, based on this pledge by Betacommand, on the condition that the bot will be blocked if it edits outside those areas. I would, however, encourage Betacommand to continue to propose new BetacommandBot tasks, ready to be implemented at the end of the 30 day voluntary self-imposed ban. This will help the community in deciding if further Arbcom review is needed. I'll leave it to the bureaucrats and WP:BAG to decide about reflagging BCBot. I'm still here for the next hour, so as before any objections, say so below. I really will stick to the hour, or extend it and let someone else handle the unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per what I have said above. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the unblock, with the express condition that if BC starts to use an account (bot, or not) to perform unsupervised automated tasks with no prior formal approval, he will be blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the promise of the block being indefinite. Reso lute 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock in order to perform approved tasks. Kelly ^hi! 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the terms BC has set here. There will be a number of people monitoring his edits. I will also be watching closely, and will block him myself if he violates any of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but prefer lucasbfr's revised unblock proviso. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. He can't be trusted with bots. You can't just keep giving him second chances for the same thing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a probation than a second chance. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's insane to allow him anywhere near a bot. However, if there are enough people babysitting... Friday (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the remedies of two ArbCom cases enough probation? A ecis^Brievenbus 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being that Betacommand has violated the restrictions on bot use set forth in his most recent ArbCom case, I believe that an unblock should be cleared with ArbCom. However, if consensus is to unblock, I agree with the conditions set forth by Betacommand and lucasbfr. Is he back? (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Betacommand's comments upto this point have neither explained, nor apologized for, the DefaultSort issue. Though he's made consessions regarding the next 30 days [11], he's also failed to make any commitment to follow bot policy beyond those concessions. The sockpuppeting issue was an overreaction, but the concern over the way he operates scripts is nonetheless justified. If we are going to give BC his (X+1)^th chance, then we ought to expect some evidence of contrition and commitment to improve. So far, I don't see that. An apology for the script-related problems documented above would be a good place to start. Otherwise I fear we will just end up back here again in a few more weeks. Dragons flight (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will be short and to the point, to avoid losing my temper at the moment. due to the harassment and stalking that follows me even simple bot task request involve a large amount of hostility and disruptive editing by certain users, I wasnt in the mood for more trolling, and did not want the hassle and harassment. having trialled the script for several thousand edits without any issues I finally made it automatic. But to the known harassment that would come I just avoided BRFA. Ive been quietly attempting to fade out of the spotlight. for now -- β^_command 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave, as there will be less assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of automated tools, harassment and abusive sockpuppetry on Wikipedia without you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Betacommand, that simple bot task request you linked to is a very good example of what I see as the problem with your behaviour: people are bringing up valid questions and concerns, and you respond by ignoring the concerns, arrogantly dismissing any opposition without answering the factual questions asked, and insulting people. The only harassment, hostility and disruptive editing that I can see in that BRFA is coming from you. Is he back? (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to unblock for 36 hours, then re-block, review every contribution for its value in itself, and whether it stuck to Beta's pledge, and then re-approve for more open editing. Note that I did disagree with the unblock of Beta at all, but consensus struck and my opinion on this issue has changed accordingly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to reblock; I will be happy to put in a few hours at roughly the 36 hr mark to review every single edit by all of his accounts to confirm he has kept the pledge that I asked for. I am sure others will be willing to do the same. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If this were to happen, I feel it would take a great deal of time to review every edit by BCBot, as a bot that edits at a very high rate. Whether I agree with this idea or not, well.., but I can't see how reviewing every edit is practical, if even feasible. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, the bot tasks that he has requested to keep running do not involve a high number of edits, and any review of his edits on his main account would need to carefully consider if the edit rate was feasible without a bot - if he went over 10/min it would be a cause for alarm, and if he went as high as 20/min for any sustained period within the first 36 hours, I would probably call foul and block him for having broken the spirit of these unblock parameters. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I said I'd unblock the bot after an hour pending discussion, but based on the discussion so far, I'm not willing to unblock, particularly give Dragonflight's comment, which on reflection I agree with. I do think that an eventual unblock may be possible, but it looks like more discussion is needed. OK, that's me done for today. Over to someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. Betacommand was instructed by the arbitration committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies (at 1, B), to operate bots "only in accordance with all applicable policies and within the scope of their approvals". He has not complied with this instruction. It may be advisable to remit the matter to the arbitration committee, particularly if Betacommand remains unwilling or unable to articulate the reasons for his non-compliance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to take any action one way or the other myself as I've had runins with BC in the past so might not be neutral - but I'd support leaving the bot blocked. While it does save everyone else a lot of time, in my opinion the time taken cleaning up its mistakes, plus the (unquantifiable) loss to the project of good-faith new editors driven away by the combination of the bot's "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach to deletion-tagging and BC's rudeness, more than cancels out the benefits of the bot. I agree with the assorted people above that this really needs an enforceable decision by Arbcom or it'll keep festering. — iridescent 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (ec) Agree with Lucasbfr, provided that the block is considered a ban. All bots, all socks, ~~all editors that are in favor of letting him run unsupervised~~ </sarcasm>, etc., should be blocked. As this more like his 20th chance, "starting over" does not seem fair, unless the Arbcom explicitly allows it. If anyone else had made this many clearly incorrect bot or script-assisted edits, he would have been placed on a timer parole, probably limited to 2 edits per minute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment I'm not entirely familiar with the whole situation, although as far as I am aware, he was blocked for his bot going out of control, and incivility, but since I'm not really up to speed on this, please can someone fill me in?? I hear that there was a separate noticeboard about this. Anyhow, maybe if ArbCom looks at this, it would be a solution, but whether it'd work is anyone's guess... Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I am completely confused. Since when is it illegal to use a second account? That has never been a blockable offense. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, he's had far too many chances on the bot front. Good faith eroded. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few months back, there was a reluctance to block Betacommand and all his 'bots because there was a need to finish the non-free-use image tagging job, and his 'bot was doing that. But that job is done, and other 'bots, from less controversial editors and with better track records, have taken over that task. Betacommand has already been disciplined by ArbCom in two separate arbitrations. At this point, there's no essential task being performed by any Betacommand 'bot. So I suggest he be denied the ability and privilege to run 'bots and restricted to one (1) existing user account for ordinary editing. He also should continue to play no role in the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group, from which he was previously removed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am utterly fed up with adding to what is now pushing half a gigabyte of discussion over Betacommand's continued inability to use automated editing tools sensibly, within the confines of policy and the two ArbCom cases to which he has been a party, and most importantly, without breaking just about everything he touches. I've learnt the hard way: if you do things with bots, you make mistakes; if you don't do trials and tests, and get approval first, you break things. Why Betacommand hasn't been able to accept this after god knows how many incidents is quite beyond me. There is no justification here for blocking Betacommand himself, but User:BetacommandBot has utterly exhausted my patience, and (I think) that of a large swathe of the community. Happy‑melon 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BCB unblock for now, if only to shut up those who say that BCB does indispensable work. I think a month off will show that if we dispense with the BCB bot work, then we can dispense with BC's vitriol as well. ➪HiDrNick! 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bot unblock for now. I support the unblock of Betacommand but I don't support unblocking the bot at this time. I pretty much agree with what Dragons flight has said above in this section. I also feel the problems with Beta and his bots have been going on for way too long and taken up far too much time of too many people and I don't see any need to rush to unblocking the bot without ensuring a proper resolution is in place first. Sarah 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:BetacommandBot unblocked: Whether or not a block is appropriate for bot-related work, civility concerns, or anything else, what is clear is that Beta did not use his bot account as a sockpuppet. I truly don't the intention of jumping into this foray – if the community decides action needs to be taken, so be it. However, blocks should be done appropriately. This particular block was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for my own clarity and hopefully for others, the preceeding title means that MZMcBride has actually gone ahead and unblocked BetacommandBot, not just that he feels it should be unblocked

((Block log); 21:04 . . MZMcBride (Talk | contribs) unblocked BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (inappropriate block) )

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- A very bad move. The only reason Betacommand keeps getting away with stuff is because no sanction ever sticks to him. There's always someone unaware of the magnitude of his disruption who is willing to undo it. And then he just assumes that everyone who criticized his actions was evil and wrong and he doesn't have to change the way he operates in the slightest. (Update: ... He's making that assumption right now. Nice job, MZMcBride.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is against unblocking. I propose that MZMcBride be whacked with a trout the size of Singapore. Repeatedly unblocking Betacommand and BetacommandBot when they are blocked signals to Betacommand that he can get away with anything. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus can go sexually pleasure itself, fact remains that BC did not abuse multiple accounts. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. If using two accounts to edit war on policy pages is not abusive sockpuppetry, what is? His long history of assumption of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama, abuse of tools and harassment already warrants an indefinite block, if not a ban. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's uncivil is using a misunderstanding as a way to attack an editor in good standing (who's under the microscope and far more criticized than the average Wikipedian). I don't think BC is perfect, far from it, but in no way is he deserving of the kind of comments that is coming out of your mouths. -- Ned Scott 04:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I think it would be a shame to lose our automated image checker, but right now I feel that the issue Dragons flight brought up needs to be addressed. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's with this thread's fixation on the image checker? That task was de-approved a month ago! There are now several better-managed bots that perform the task of checking fair use rationales. Betacommand's current interactions with Wikipedia, whether constructive or disruptive, have approximately nothing to do with image copyrights. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...It occurs to me you might mean the task that looks for duplicate images between en:WP and commons. That task is replaceable and not urgent, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a sock, end of story (for this block). -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::Please feel free to leave Wikipedia if you are sick of the trolling and harassment that you receive (some of which you deserve). We will throw a party when you leave JLWS, that comment is way out of line. For the record - I have had a problem or two with Betacommand's BOT, and yes, I lost my temper. However, the error was mine and not his. Was he a bit curt, sure, but I don't blame him for that. My messages to him were anything but civil. In short - mind Civil please. F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, I admit that the comment about throwing a party was incivil and wish to retract it, though I must comment that it pales in comparison to the incivility Betacommand and his supporters have been known to dish out. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed partial sanction

John Nagle makes an interesting suggestion:

Unblock Betacommand.
Restrict Betacommand to 1 existing user account for ordinary editing.
Withdraw Betacommand's bot operation privilege.
Endorse Betacommand's restriction from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group.

I'd be willing to review after 3 months if there are no new problems and he's doing useful work. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account restriction is unnecessary, there is no suggestion of deceit or abusive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with JzG, I wanted to think about this overnight (it was well after midnight local time when the thread started), but by the time I got online today it was mostly resolved. If the other account was really an abusive sock, I would expect to see a little more ... abuse from it. And its not like its a secret who User:Betacommand2 is. Mr.Z-man 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify my comment, I endorse the other sanctions. I would reword the second to require all alternate accounts to be clearly marked as such. Mr.Z-man 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JtZ, how has he not abused the sock accounts? He used his bot on another account to avoid the scrutiny that he would have received from his main bot account, its no different from a POV pusher who has a different account to make the same edits, but for the reason that the second account is not watched so heavily. I feel that using a bot on a unauthorized account is abuse. Tiptoety ^talk 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many people intend to scrutinize his edits. They should be in one place for scrutiny. When his human edits are mixed between Betacommand, Betacommand 2, Quercus basaseachicensis, and even occasionally BetacommandBot, it makes them very hard to check. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Any defense of Betacommand and his actions has been predicated on the assumption that his automated tasks are indispensable to the project, that they are a net gain. Three months without bot activity from any of his accounts could prove to be a valuable sanity check for Betacommand and the community. His sense of entitlement to run whatever script seems like a good idea at the time needs to be curtailed until he develops some sense of personal responsibility for executing poorly thought out runs, angering people, and wasting everybody's time. I think the sockpuppetry concerns has been adressed, limiting Betacommand to one account is now a matter of practicality. With the exception of the recently uncovered sock, all alternate accounts he's used so far were created to handle specific types of semi-automated edits and bot runs. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Werdna has volunteered to re-implement any bot task that is considered to be indispensable. --Random832 (contribs) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think BC needs a serious sanity check: when he's on form, he's a bloody brilliant editor, but he is so good at shooting himself in the foot... Happy‑melon 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I echo HM's sentiment above. BC's bot work is generally useful, but the constant incivility needs to end, and the abusive sockpuppetry just tears it. Since ArbCom did not sort this out properly last time (or the time before that), we can do so here and now without their help with Durova's reasonable proposal. ➪HiDrNick! 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the last three. I had blocked this user a month ago for a spree of incivility and personal attacks that would have landed most users with a week, not to speak of any user under arbcom restrictions. Was frankly a joke, but he seems to be a special case. The community can leave Betacommand unblocked without any attempt to address his problems if it likes, ignore arbitration after arbitration, but it'll just have to deal with more stuff later. So I guess that's that's something that can keep the idle busy at a later stage. I'm guessing some people must just like this kind of thing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they call it Bunker Mentality or Us vs. Them. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with caveat that no bot work remains in place indef - no review, not now, not ever. He hasn't used his bot responsibly the first 30 times he was told off, there is no indication that will change. Viridae ^Talk 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand is unblocked now, so 1 is moot. Point 2 may be unnecessary as JzG says. Fine with 3 and 4. But surely we need to have no involvement with bots at all. Definitely no more unauthorised ones, no asking for authorisation for new ones, and no AWB either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial endorse Point 1 - restrictions on edit speed? Or will the same automated/semi-automated ops happen on the main account with the same attendant outcomes? Point 3 - per my point 1 and what is the timeframe/procedure to reintroduce bot activity, or is this indef/never? Point 4 - given some incivility(!) on bot associated pages, does this extend to a topic ban? Franamax (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll clarify: common sense applies. Actions that common sense would interpret as gaming the bot restriction--or as incivility--may convert a 90 day trial into a permanent restriction, and may bring forth additional blocks and restrictions. If Betacommand intends to embark upon a gray area, I expect him to open a noticeboard thread to explain his intentions and reasons in advance of acting upon them, and seek consensus for the step. If he acts in good faith and demonstrates that he can adjust to feedback, then I'd open a point-by-point discussion of each restriction after 90 days and the community can decide by consensus whether to keep or lift those measures. Durova^Charge! 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the notation that "common sense" often includes the argument that one can perform many edits per minute using tabbed browser pages, so beware; and with particular approval of GRBerry's comment below, in light of this clarification, fully endorse. Franamax (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Common sense also says that if he intends to embark upon edits that could reasonably be confused with bot editing, he should seek the community's consent in advance and explain his reasons. Durova^Charge! 07:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Frankly, I think "no bots" in this sense has at a bare minimum to mean "no fully automated tools at all and the only semi-automated tools he may use are those available in the Gadgets tab of Mypreferences". (Since I use none of the tools, I can't say if there are any that he should be restricted from using.) One account only is a needed restriction for the no bot restriction to be meaningful and for the review at the end to be meaningful. The problems have been going on far too long for us to not conclude on some sort of additional restrictions, and I haven't seen a better proposal. GRBerry 04:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BC didn't violate a single part of WP:SOCK, and giving him any account restrictions related to that incident is retarded. For parts 3 and 4, leave that to the Bot Approvals Group, that's what they're here for. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the wording of WP:SOCK, I'm uneasy about the use of an undisclosed sock account to alter a policy page that a recent arbitration decision had instructed him to adhere to, and that he made no attempt to seek consensus for the change or to apologize for the mistake, if indeed it was an honest one. Taken in isolation that would not necessarily be something the community would act upon, but in fact this is not an isolated instance, and the supportive statements that have been offered on his behalf leave me both sympathetic and unsatisfied. Shall we interpret this instance of socking by a narrow parsing of the sock policy and ignore its intent? Shall we pretend that--because this is his first confirmed use of multiple accounts--he deserves the full breadth of lenient good faith the community accords to a civil new editor? I say no: reluctantly and with a heavy heart I say no. This is someone who has been asked to play nicely many times. We have reached the point where failure to act either renders policy meaningless meaningless or feeds the rumors that Wikipedia is all about which friends you make. I bear Betacommand no ill will; I also mean business. Durova^Charge! 06:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with reservations; I think it should be toughened up. He needs to have absolutely nothing to do with bots anymore, and he needs to be restricted from engaging in any kind of incivility or poor behavior. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse restricting Betacommand to one account and banning him from using bots or other automated tools, with additional requirement that in six months, he must write three GAs, as well as fly to Singapore and stalk five Singaporean celebrities to take photos of them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and suggest careful monitoring of civility. Maybe a group of three or four named admins could be formed to mentor/keep an eye on him? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:There is nothing to sanction. Beta was the subject of an accusation of abusive socking, which was later determined to be incorrect (in that the socks weren't abusive). The folks who oppose BCB & Beta in general have used this as a coatrack for all the complaints they've ever had about him - which is just plain wrong. Frankly, were I in Beta's position, I would have told the project to f-off some time ago. My advice to Beta is and has been for some time, to abandon all of his NFCC tainted Betacommand accounts & edit with a new, unconnected identity. He was in good enough standing to pass RfA before, which suggests to me that he's quite capable of being an editor in good standing - absent all the vultures and their persistent attacks. --Versa geek
Oppose. This is inappropriate. The thread was started because of alleged socking, not because of alleged bot abuse. The alleged socking was false. To nevertheless block the bot is at best fruit of the poisonous tree. Further, it's ineffective, because standard bot policy allows a user to do assisted edits from a user account. The bot account should be unblocked. The community could, however, require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only; part of the reason the problems with the defsort edits weren't noticed is that the edits were not done from the bot account. Gimmetrow 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think this is a good compromise. Enigma ^message 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot reblocked

Note: I've blocked BetacommandBot per the proposed sanction. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (to be unblocked pending a review in a period of a minimum of thirty days, as suggested by Betacommand's concession ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What disruption was he causing just now that caused the need for the bot to be blocked? What were you preventing? There was never any discussion to block the bot in the first place. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over the section you've just commented in. I've also detailed the reasons behind the block at Betacommand's talkpage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to block, as well as abuse of the blocking policy. At the very least, if you had consensus, all you would need to do is tell BC to not run the bot, and only block if he did not comply. It doesn't get any simpler than that, and I'm saddened to see even more admins simply don't understand that blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC channel

It’s just been brought to my attention that Betacommand runs a secret channel on IRC. It’s for things that “can’t be discussed in the admins channel” and for things such as blocks and deletes – precisely the things that shouldn’t be discussed on IRC. Apparently there was quite a rush of early supports to the recent BAG memberships as well as they were discussed in the channel... Now... I’ve tried hard to clean up the image of IRC, so if Beta or anyone else with access here would like to elaborate further on this, and preferably passing full logs to ArbCom, it would be much appreciated. This is sort of a joke. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I may have to kill you for that. Or at least whack you about the head repeatedly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's Freenode. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over it. Beta and his friends can do as he please in there, you really have no methods of stopping them. Maxim_(talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do if people are making blocks because of discussion in these channels. I'm guessing this means you have access? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while ArbCom may not be able to influence off wiki behavior, any off wiki behavior can be sactioned here. For example, if I canvass via email, my RFA, I can expect to be blocked, or otherwise sanctioned. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - if you issue a block, you're accountable for it, but whether you've consulted an IRC Cabal, the FBI, an old episode of The Honeymooners or an astrologer is neither here nor there. Wily D 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be against the community's interest to know who does and doesn't chatter there, esp. given the subversive purpose it apparently holds. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, no, I do not. I only found out by your post. You seem to misundestand a vital concept, and that is that arbcom does not have the power or authority to stop people from talking to each other. Maxim_(talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I must have misunderstood Jimbo when he said ArbCom can sanction for IRC conduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Arbcom can pass some silly bureaucratic, they don't have much of a way of enforcing it. And IRC logs are highly unreliable, it's very easy to manipulate them and have a few users back you up. Maxim_(talk) 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The channel in question, which I idle in (pitchforks!!), begins with a "##" sign. This means that it is outside the jurisdiction of the wikimedia group contacts, thus outside the jurisdiction of James and Sean, thus outside that of the ArbCom. I'd venture to say that AC can't prohibit discussion wherever it takes place. Martinp23 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I once discussed Wikipedia over lunch in a completely non official venue. We discussed all the things that can't be discussed with sandwiches, like protections, deletes, blocks, you name it. I fear I may have tainted the image of lunch permanently. Sorry guys. And I binned the crumbs unfortunately, so I can't send them onto ArbCom. Will (aka Wimt) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you didn't block someone over it though. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you're making a lot of heat and noise over this. What solution, causing minimal disruption, would you like to see? Martinp23 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know exactly who got blocked, and who was involved. I've been told people did get blocked through discussion in there, so I think it's fair we can now open it up to community discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, you're asking for private logs of private communication in an off-wiki unoffical setting (less official than #wikipedia-en-admins ). I'ts not gonna happen. Martinp23 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to know who got blocked, because if there was some user who was blocked by Betacommand and friends in the channel, then it might be useful to check that the blocks were not placed abusively. However, I feel that it is unlikely that any blocks that still stand would have been placed inappropriately, and as it's unlikely we will find out, why don't we just let the IRC part of it just blow over? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start there's no proof anywhere that anyone has been blocked in there, other than what Ryan is saying, and he could indeed be mistaken. On the other hand we have the users of the channel, including me, who don't remember anyone being blocked in there. Now who to believe - those who were there or those who weren't. In either case, I'm surprised such flimsy grounds can act as such a seemingly sturdy base for this teapot of storms we see swirling angrily before us (cunningly disguised as a wikipedian or two - what's new there?!). I *can't wait* until the "I hate IRC" brigade come out. Martinp23 23:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but you wouldn't know if I had, in the same way as you have no way of knowing (or stopping) a whole host of different forms of off-wiki conversation. The fact that this channel is on IRC, as opposed to MSN or real life or email or whatever should really be irrelevant. Will (aka Wimt) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I personally despise IRC and its use, ArbCom has absolutely zero authority over its use, or where I or anybody else choose to discuss Wikipedia. None. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one on wiki has control over the channel except for the channel operator. no blocks were created there. any and all blocks are the sole responsibility of the admin who places the block. Ryan Im sorry if you like throwing mud, but the egg is on your face. the logs will not be released due to privacy issues. things have been said in private that should not be made public, due to the ability to link them to real life identity. β^_command 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm - is that a comment on the contributor, not the content? Franamax (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to jump to support Betacommand of late, but I must say that the fact that certain users seem to believe that they can regulate off-wiki discussion is absurd. As long as this discussion is not represented as consensus-forming for any group wider than the membership of the channel, it's perfectly fine. If I ask martin and frana about potentially protecting a page via email, and they both agree, I can say "martin and frana support my protection". I cannot say "the community supports my protection". Until there is evidence of the latter case taking place, no action should be taken regarding these off-wiki discussions. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, off-wiki groups will form all the time. But if someone questions me and I respond that they're throwing mud and egg is on their face, feel free to suggest that I should calmly respond to their substantive issues. And if I habitually respond to people raising issues with me by questioning their motives, knowledge or mental capacity, feel free to call me on that too - and please don't excuse me because I've been provoked or the other person is wrong or I'm so valuable. Just tell me flat out when you think my ideas are wrong. Honest, I'm a big boy :) Franamax (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLYSHITSECRETIRCCHANNELOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGLOL. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah a secret channel, big deal... ...so what's the channel. Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of reason people please understand that no secrets is the same as no privacy. If people want to consult about their decisions in private it is their right to do so. Hold them accountable for their actions and that will be enough. This whole IRC thing is a witch hunt. _{1 != 2} 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion-Betacommand rap-sheet list to be created

Settting myself up for the obvious response of WP:HARASS, but frankly, I'm fed up of beta getting off on the ill-informed basis of his previous contributions or record. Several of the commenters in the above discussion seem to be under the impression beta is a one-off violater, or that he does enough good work to get off, or that even that the recent issues are something to do with NFCC (which ended a month ago) and are no longer an issue. I propose a dedicated page be created to actualy list the facts behind betacommand's mistakes, every bot mistake, every example of (spectacular) incivility, every example of a lack of cooperation, every mistake by sock. etc etc. This would be a diff verified list, nothing more, nothing less. I believe this would help the community, because frankly, parts of the community are starting to believe the hype in these long winded discussions, when some of the facts are present in discussions just two weeks prior, let alone two pages above the current drama. So if another incident occurs regarding beta, this list will serve as an indisputable record of past actions, and will prevent some of the more bizarre comments above regarding what people have and have not seen, or do or do not believe. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a rap-sheet also called an RFC here on en:wiki? Make one then. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is far outside of community norms to maintain a laundry list of an editor's missteps or others' grievances against them outside the context of dispute resolution. east.718 at 01:51, May 17, 2008

its just yet another example of MMN trolling me, provoking and being disruptive. β^_command 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregation and collation of relevant information is not disruptive. Unless you really want to suggest your numerous and long standing contentious actions are easily summarised and recalled by every user in each ongoing debate about your conduct. It can be plainly seen that many of the above contributors have little idea of beta's ongoing behaviour or actions, and others make claims about what he has or hasn't done before based on memory alone. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, this is what beta chooses as only his sixth contribution today, inspite of this ongoing thread about him. I guess we know where his priorities are, to attack others rather than defend himself. It is no more than typical behaviour in my mind given my long exposure to his opinions, but without a rap-sheet on record, this is not so obvious to your casual AN/ANI contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that RFCs are over a short time period, and result in an actionable outcome. In this case, that would seem pointless. I propose merely the retention of an accurate record of infractions, over time, such that all commenters in future discussions can work from fact, rather than belief. MickMacNee (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in that proposal, you are wrong. Do whatever you want on your own PC; or do it here and use it or lose it. We don't start up ongoing rap-sheets, even on you. Rely on the people who care what is going on - they all have good memories. But feel free to keep your own list, in private. Wikipedia is not a BADSITE. Franamax (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is where you are wrong, there are plenty of contributors above who have clearly not recalled the facts correctly. The system is broken, no-one is willing, after 2 failed attempts, to continually go through the rigmarole of collating the existent piles of evidence for arbcom, so as a result, the facts of at least three recent threads here in the last few days get forgotten over time, let alone the past two years of numerous actions, and serve to support the vague arguments that betacommand is an overall assett. Surely you can see the people above talking about NFCC in respect to this particular thread, and the past two, are completely wrong, because the NFCC tagging ceased a month ago. Due to the lack of factual information, facts are being distorted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people are completely wrong or clearly don't recall, you can easily present the diffs and entire threads to show that, right? If there are facts, you can easily show them, right? If it's all so bad, you don't need recruits, you can do it yourself. If it's so clear, you can bring all the occurences together and everyone will say "gee, that guy is right". Go for it. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the last arbcom farce? Yeah I'll get right on that. MickMacNee (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that intended as a convincing argument? Or an expression of cynicism? Franamax (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A convincing argument? Of course. Have you ever gone through the arbcome evidence/proposed decision cycle? Or are you just telling me I don't know what I'm talking about? Are you telling me that even with the evidence of the past three threads and the above comments that people aren't still referring to NFCC as an exccuse? Are you telling me that if I created a record page of diffs off my own back without AN approval that beta wouldn'nt be screaming harassment? Heck, you've got what you wanted already, the calls for a topic ban are already in full swing below. Well, I'll leave you all too it. I trust you can deal with beta and socks in future because you all recall the evidence of previous incidents unfailingly based on the current thread (stifles laughter). A good read is beta's failed attempt at regaining sysop status in 2007. I presume I don't have to link you up, experts that y'all are. MickMacNee (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time one turns around, there's a BetaCommand thread going on and that is enough to block for disruption of the project - period. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no, but you'd think people might get the idea eventually. But then again, as I said above, some defenders in the last few threads are actually still talking about NFCC, cleary not aware that that has finished, or of the current problems. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mistaken edits

Can someone explain to me the apparent gap of use of the sock account, which was first used on 8/9 Oct 2007, and then resumed in Feb 2008. And also, if someone can succesfully use a sock from February, that their first mistake is 3 months later, and just happens to be to the bot policy. MickMacNee (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate account use is just a mistake, go back through the contribs and look at the timing, it was just a mistake, one session was set up for automated edits, one wasn't, shit happens, wrong window. Much as I hate using the phrase, this is an instance where you have to assume good faith. I nuked a company product line that way once. Show the pattern. Franamax (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it highly dubious that this happened at exactly the same time as a BAG edit war. And just which alternate account was beta using between October and February? (by MMN 'til he signs)

The reliable CU editor above would presumably have found the other account(s). The fact that there was an edit war is precisely significant - war in the first available window; dammit, wrong window. That's called a mistake. The other usage of the alternate account seems uncontroversial. I don't agree with it, but many others have endorsed it, so I'll stay quiet. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another human mistake no less. Pop quiz, as you are seemingly an expert, list all the 'human mistakes' beta has committed in the past two years. Quickly now, you only have the couple of days it takes for an AN thread to dissappear into the archives and all is forgotten again. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to answer your questions from the opening of this thread. Thanks for your input. Nitey! Franamax (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Shit happens, move on. You must be blind to the hundreds of comments above then. Sleep tight. MickMacNee (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for drama reduction

I propose that User:Betacommand and User:MickMacNee are prohibited from interacting with each other. Since MickMacNee can't seem to resist provoking Betacommand, and Betacommand can't seem to resist obnoxious replies, the best solution would be for them to not interact. If either of them comments about the other, or replies to a comment by the other, they should be blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely sensible suggestion. Kelly ^hi! 03:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible and I agree there is some baiting and charging going on. Is this accompanied by a topic-space restriction? Franamax (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already stated barely one day ago that it is absolutely pointless trying to get betacommand sanctioned in anything like an equal standard to anyone else here (I laughingly suggested he had to be caught breaking a major rule), so do you honestly think that I think my presence/absence in this matter will mean any (non)action will proceed differently? I really need to get some bandages, because this whole thread has my sides splitting. MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it's pointless, why are you still trying? sho y 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

You are confused, I am not attempting to achieve any sanction here, that is what I know is fruitless, but I am giving a suggestion to help future discussions, as current ones are often full of errors, due to the time lapse and complexity. MickMacNee (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we will then still be left with the problem of beta's interactions withe all the other members of the community. Drama down 1%, the problem remains. DGG (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the noise from the perpetual Betacommand/MickMacNee fighting gone, we'll be able to tell for sure. I suspect it'll be more like 50% of the Betacommand drama. --Carnildo (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I think the point remains that not all of the problems lie with Betacommand; much of the issue lies with editors who who prefer not to bother with Wikipedia's copyright policy and who intentionally troll him as a result. Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that NFCC tagging stopped like a month ago?, and that at least the last three complaints against beta came after it. Like I said, misinformation is occuring in this case, which would definitely benefit from a definitive rap-sheet. MickMacNee (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, MickMacNee is actually spot on here. None of the recent issues have had anything to do with copyrights, because Betacommand has not worked in that area for at least a month. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse much of what MickMacNee has been saying. When the point is reached where MickMacNee makes valid points, and people clamber out of the woodwork to call him a troll or disruptive, then people are losing their objectivity and looking at the contributor and their history with him, not at his comments. Rather than ban MickMacNee from interacting with Betacommand, what is needed is for Betacommand to: (a) respond to the valid criticisms being made (I still don't see Betacommand acknowledging the shocking mistakes made with the DEFAULTSORT script - rather, I see Betacommand ignoring that and making unhelpful comments); and (b) stop calling people trolls when they are not (and that goes for others as well as Betacommand). MickMacNee is beginning to show that he has a better grasp on what is going on around here than some of the commentators in this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think MMN has said all that he needs to say thus far - he is falling into the trap of hyperbole and, in some cases, personal attacks as he continues to comment here. I would urge him to take a step back and perhaps leave this discussion and leave what appears to be his vendetta against BC. I'd also condone blocking him and/or Betacommand if he/they continue to occlude this process as we've seen so far. Martinp23 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick has made some excellent points. Like many of us, he is frustrated that Betacommand seems to get away with anything, hence his tone. Other editors have also made harsh criticisms of Betacommand; why single out Mick? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has it been now?

How many times has it been now that we've wrongfully blocked an established editor for sockpuppetry before talking with them, only to find out that the block was wrong and to find that all it did was generate tons of drama? It's been more than four times in the last year or so, I know that much. Unless it's necessary to block, for the love of God, wait and talk to the user.

tl;dr - blocking == last resort. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but but but Ned, they love the drama. β^_command 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the comment of someone whose ignorance is only over-reached by their arrogance; two arbcoms, a seenmingly weekly appearance at an admins noticeboard, a reputation for incivility when not failing to communicate, and the exasperation of a significant faction of the community... and it is all the fault of the dramah-mongers...? Never mind bots, with blinkers like that you should be running a racehorse stable. Incredible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point painfully stands, some admins need a kick in the ass and it slammed into their heads, blocking is a last resort. I have no doubt that the other issues we're talking about would also come up eventually, but regarding the sockpuppet accusation, the drama from that, that at the very least, could have been avoided. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to start an RFAR?

Given that MZMcBride has unilaterally unblocked BetacommandBot even though there seems to be a large amount of support for prohibiting Betacommand from using bots, it seems to me that the community is unable to come to a decision on this issue. Should a request for arbitration be started? Also keep in mind the fact that Betacommand has violated the conditions set forth in his last arbitration case, namely remedy 1B. Maybe someone who knows the arbitration process well could comment. Is he back? (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told one will be filed at 10:00 UTC over my failure to unblock, I've prepared my response in my userspace since I won't be around much tomorrow (moving), but should be around to copy it over once its filed. MBisanz ^talk 06:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Betacommand 2 case closed about a month ago with no actionable remedies. One remedy stated that if Betacommand (or other parties) continued to misbehave, "further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time", possibly leading to severe sanctions against the offender (Betacommand, in this case). A month has passed and Betacommand is still incivil; he has even resorted to abusive sockpuppetry. Thus I believe that the further review should take place and appropriate punishments issued. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be initiating action, I have merely been informed it will be filed by another user due to my failure to comply. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, what are you referring to? Has someone threatened you with an RfAr for not unblocking one of Beta's accounts? That sounds unlikely to go far. I think we should bring this back to JLWS's point: ArbCom decided that they would reconsider their Betacommand decision after a reasonable time, and perhaps it's time to remind them that they decided that. It's true that MZMcBride, and maybe you, might end up mentioned in such a reconsideration, but I really don't think it'll be a big deal in either case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On May 17 I was instructed by Betacommand in a private IRC message to unblock his bot within 24 hours or he would file an RFAR against me. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this never eventuated though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't happened yet, but I've got my statement ready at a moment's notice! MBisanz ^talk 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rspeer, for keeping the discussion on-topic. Could someone file a "clarification or other request" regarding Betacommand at the arbitration page? If nobody does, I will do so over the weekend. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for instructions on requests relating to previous cases. --bainer (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop with an RFAR? Why not hang, draw and quarter him? The debate above shows that it was a defensible, if wrong, decision. Leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why let Betacommand stop at assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, dramamongering and abuse of automated tools? Why not let him run a vandalbot that fills all articles with expletives, harass everyone off the project and drop a nuclear bomb on the Wikimedia servers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really an answer to that, is there? I might frame this and hang it on the wall as a classic example of taking rhetoric just a teeny little bit too far. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it beating JzG at his own game by meeting sarcasm with more sarcasm and meeting rhetoric with more rhetoric, through a parody. (Someone else misunderstood my comment above, hence the clarification.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call it beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new suggestion

Rather than get into drama, shouldn't a civility parole be enforced?? Whether another ArbCom case will work only time will tell. Blocking him for a year could work, but some people here probably wouldn't like that. However, I agree with JzG/Guy's take on things in this situation. On a side note, however, the Quercus account has inspired me to edit the article of the same name - a stub that needs expansion anyway. Ta, --1qx (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there exists a group of Wikipedians who will reverse every block of Betacommand, such a civility parole would never be properly enforced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More empty rhetoric. "Every" block? {{fact}}. This block, yes, because as noted above it was unjustified, but we don't know what might happen in the future. Input such as yours, which looks very much as if it is actually based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images, does not seem to me to help in analysing or resolving this situation. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Betacommand hasn't done anything to do with non-free image tagging since April 1 2008, with any of his accounts. Check BC's and BCB's image namespace contributions. All of his work in the image namespace recently has been to do with images eligible for moves to commons - about as far from NFCCC as you can get within ns:6. If there's one thing that arguments in this particular chapter of the Betacommand saga can't be about, it's non-free images. Happy‑melon 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check Betacommand's block log. He has been blocked eleven times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last sixteen blocks placed on BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. To be honest, I only checked the block logs after posting the comment and did not expect the percentage of reversed blocks to be that high. Why do you think that my input is "based on opposition to the Foundation policy in respect of unfree images", when all my comments here have been about Betacommand's conduct? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do more than that. You have to examine each block and unblock and determine their individual validity. Admittedly, that gets boring very quickly, but if that had been done at the ArbCom cases, people couldn't keep waving the length of the block log around as reason for anything other than needing a close look (which would have been done). Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but I assume that most were valid (if not, our admins are horrendously incompetent). Why would all blocks be indiscriminately reversed? If only bad blocks were reversed, most blocks would not be reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they were "indiscriminately" reversed? Have you checked the circumstances surrounding each one? This one has been discussed quite a bit now, I would hardly call it "indiscriminate." Mr.Z-man 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge confirmed and Betacommand2 unblocked

I've asked Betacommand about the pledge he made here. Betacommand has confirmed here that he agrees to the terms he had previously suggested, and will not use the other alternate account again. Based on that, I've unblocked User:Betacommand2. I know this doesn't quite tally with the proposal here, but I don't think a self-identified alternate account used on public computers is too much of a concern as alternate accounts go. Anyway, the pledge in full:

"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs." - User:Betacommand, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, 14:58, 16 May 2008 [12]

I would suggest that we be flexible about this, and allow other uncontroversial updates as well, such as the updating of User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage and anything else done automatically in Wikipedia (project space) and User space. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only a bookie would take bets on Betacommand screwing up those "uncontroversial tasks"... --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious you are frustrated at the way things are going, but your comments are not really helping. Please try and make constructive suggestions, not ones where you set someone up to fail. Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) has been doing since this unblocking. Looks like several thousand edits have been made, mostly undoing bad edits by MyBisanzBot and JohnBot. There was the removal of an old RFC [13]. All these actions violated Betacommand's pledge "I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for anti-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs."

Now let's look at Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs). For a few hours, that account was unblocked, and hundreds of edits were made, at a rate that suggests 'bot usage, or at least semi-automated tools. and despite the pledge "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit."

Any questions? --John Nagle (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Quercus basaseachicensis hasn't been unblocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you are pointing to are from before this started. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Said edits occurred ~~after~~before the recent "pledge" [14] (timestamp 14:58, 16 May 2008) by BetaCommand. --John Nagle (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they occurred before the blocks and before the pledge. John, please recheck your timings and if you agree you have this wrong, please strike out what you wrote. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What may be confusing you is that the timestamps in peoples' signatures are UTC, while the timestamps in the block and contribution logs are in your local timezone. --Carnildo (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's crazy. Please tell me there is a bugzilla thread about this? Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it's designed; timestamps provided in the interface can be changed on the fly according to user preferences, but timestamps saved in a page's wikitext are just that - text. —Cryptic 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its called setting your preference time to UTC and getting used to seeing weird times in the watchlist. The dev I spoke to made it seem like a WONTFIX sort thing. MBisanz ^talk 23:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Gadget in the prefs that shows a UTC clock at the top of the page in Special:Preferences. It's been an incredible blessing ever since I've enabled it. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward with Betacommand's use of bot tools

One thing I must say is: unilateral action kills discussion, as has happened here: although I do personally disagree with the arguably legalistic actions of a few (actually one) editor in this episode, I am more disappointed that said action has effectively killed this discussion and compelled a return to the status quo in disregard for whatever direction consensus might have been heading. Now I'm honestly not sure whether the threads above are moving forwards, backwards, or sideways with respect to Betacommand's right to use bots and automated editing scripts on en.wiki. Three of BC's accounts (User:Betacommand, User:Betacommand2 and User:BetacommandBot) have been unblocked, but BCB remains without the bot flag. Above, we have a group of twelve editors (including myself) who support banning Betacommand from using any and all bots and automated editing tools for a period of at least 90 days; and one editor who has expressed opposition. Betacommand is currently suspended from the Bot Approvals group. What are we going to do here? Should discussion about BC's use of bot tools and scripts be conducted here, or moved to WP:BON, or to somewhere else? Ditto for BC's membership of BAG: move to WT:BAG or decide here? I'd like to think we're capable of sorting this out ourselves without running to the ArbCom... Happy‑melon 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the community's confidence in BC using bot accounts has been sufficiently eroded that he should not be permitted to run them for the foreseeable future. I am less certain of the BAG membership - he is certainly technically minded and would do well as a member, but am not sure whether he would generate more light than heat. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few Wikipedians continue to blindly back him up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands I really will not be using BCBot for 30 days (except for the spam and daily stat updates that are set on cron jobs). BCBot's flag should be restored as there was no reason for removal in the first place. as it stands my only plans for BCBot are the current approved tasks, I dont see anything else in the future, if I do Ill file a BRFA. one thing I would like to point out is that personal attacks and other trolling towards me never seems to get the users so much as a warning. β^_command 15:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that there should be no causal link between your block and BCB's deflag (although in reality it does appear to be the case). This episode has been confused by two incidents occuring almost on top of one another: I think we've established above that accusations of "sockpuppetry" are weak, and that no real harm was done. However, the DEFAULTSORT issues are serious and add to what even you must admit is a very long line of incidents with your use of automated editing tools, which have twice already landed you in front of the ArbCom. What I am most disappointed with throughout this discussion is some editors' preference for strict interpretation of policy over the application of common sense. You were operating a legitimate second account which you accidentally revealed through a genuine mistake; yet you were blocked for violating a strict interpretation of WP:SOCK. By a similarly strict interpretation of policy, MZMcBride unilaterally overturned a growing discussion and unblocked BCB. The knee-jerk reference to NFCC work somewhere above is about as lacking in common sense as you can get :D. But only by a very strict interpretation of WP:BOT, and the suspension of just about all common sense, can we believe that this incident had nothing to do with bot operations. You are a bot operator (and at times a very good one), who is known to have methods of editing at fantastically high rates. You use a number of accounts with a variety of flags and features, and you have used (and, regrettably, misused) these automated editing tools on most if not all of them. Any judgement on whether or not you should be allowed to use account X for action Y with flags Z is completley pointless, because you are just one user, with one brain and one keyboard: which account your edits are attributed to is a technical detail. It's what those edits entail, and how you made them, that is important; and I'm afraid my personal opinion is that you've proved yourself incapable of avoiding the mistakes that we all make when editing quickly... and the only way to stop you doing more harm than good is to prohibit you, for a while at least, from editing faster than you can with your bare hands. Happy‑melon 16:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that, I made over a thousand manual defaultsort edits by hand I never noticed any issues and none where brought to my attention, I have kept my edit rate low (~5) edits a minute other than the recent group of 42 which was caused by a feature of pywikipedia which will not save a page if maxlag is over 5. In total I have had thousands of edits with just the recent issue that was brought up. as I stated BCBot will be inactive except for basic functions for 30 days, so that should meet your thoughts. β^_command 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and so on ad nauseam. Would you care to reconsider your position? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're doing something seriously wierd with pywiki, I can't think how the throttle is going to bunch edits up like that. That said, it's entirely besides the point. 42 edits per minute is only significant because it proves to us beyond any doubt that you were using an automated script, and weren't just very bored one evening and decided to do the same edit 4170 times :D. Whatever you're doing and however you're doing it, you are responsible for whatever comes out of your computer onto en.wiki, and it's just depressing how often those contributions are doing more harm than good. We all make mistakes, and if you'd been doing those defaultsort edits by hand, someone would have pointed out what you were doing wrong while the number of corrections needed was still in two or at most three figures. As it is, someone had to do almost five thousand reverts just to repair the damage. If you'd asked for bot approval for that task, then there wouldn't have been any problems: your error would have been spotted in trial, you'd have fixed it, and then you could have run it on BCB and not spammed a thousand watchlists and flooded RecentChanges. As it is, you circumvented the BRFA system that, as a BAG member, you should have been enforcing, ran an automated process on an unflagged account, and managed to screw up four thousand mainspace pages before you got stopped. And this is incident #X, where X is now at least in double figures, and most of them fit almost perfectly onto the framework of "looked like a good idea at the time...". What are you going to do next? What's your next bright idea going to be? Because if you don't start talking about big projects before you start them, and get more eyes to spot your errors before you make them a thousand times over, we're going to be right back here in six weeks time, with yet another WP:AN thread which begins "I've blocked Betacommand(bot) for...". Happy‑melon 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pywiki has a function called page.put_async() which places the page saves in a queue to be saved. if maxlag is high it will wait for it to lower. I started doing this very slowly manually several months ago, and the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up. β^_command 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the recent issues (last 48 hours) are the the first issues to be brought up" Are you serious? <quietly fumes in extreme irritation> I made it very clear to you that you had unanswered questions about this issue. I've spent some time composing a post on this, but I'm pasting some of it in here, as you cannot get away with saying that these are the first issues: see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here. All those edits were before the block. Five of them (from the same person) were from April. That is nearly a whole month ago. You response so far to that has been im sorry it got lost the first time in other stuff. As far as I can see, you have not lifted a finger since then to actually respond to the concerns raised by User:Snowmanradio. Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I stated before I missed Snowmanradio prior posts or I would have addressed that. the others are very recent. β^_command 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sure you won't be shocked to know that if the code was wrong now, it was also wrong in the past (e.g. April): [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

However, I get the sense that you may have intentionally or inadvertently changed the population of articles you were applying this script to. Early on it appears that nearly all of these edits were to Living People articles, which by their nature usually get resorted (e.g. First Last -> Last, First). Your script seems to have had very few errors at these. For whatever reason, in the most recent run your script appears to have targetted a broader collection of articles and consequently to have more frequently generated bad edits. Dragons flight (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nearly finished going through these edits, and I haven't seen a population change at all. See, for example the run of 17 "Gulf of _" articles from 01:18-1:25 10 May 2008, and the species articles have been a problem since the start. —Cryptic 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said somewhere that you thought he had started at "G" before you realised that he had been doing this for a long time? Is the order alphabetical or something? Betacommand, is there any order to the edits, or any list you are working from? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the edits on April (Greenhouse Mafia and earlier); but they seem to have started at the start of G on April 4. At least, unless he started in January and took a couple months off in the middle; I stopped looking 15k edits back. —Cryptic 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what numbers you say where changed I dont see any that have been changed. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now comes the difficult bit, Betacommand. When are you personally going to do to review the edits you made and fix them? Or do you intend to leave the clearing up work for others? And when will you see that you can avoid all this if only you submit such scripts for approval before you run them. Or do you still insist that you personally checked all those incorrect edits (see the diffs by Angus McLellan) and approved them? Carcharoth (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

id offer to mass revert but I no longer have the ability to do so. β^_command 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a bot approval to find and correct the edits, or revert them if they can't be fixed. But that is only a partial solution. The issues run deeper. You need to sort out the attitude that makes you think you can do stuff like this and trust others to find and fix mistakes. You also only undertake the most cursory of reviews of your own editing. The redlinked categories issue never got fully sorted. Please, please build reversability and accountability into what you do. Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting is not the answer - it's just the easy solution. By reverting, and thereby undoing what good edits you did do, you're actually doing more damage - all that's left to show for the time and energy expended is an extra ten thousand rows in the database tables, and wikimedia needing yet another server. If you can fix the script such that it can identify false positives in the future (and as Carcharoth says, if you intend to carry on with this, prove that it's fixed at BRFA), it should be easy for someone of your coding skills to apply the same code to your own edits and identify which ones are good and which ones are bad. Treating everything as a binary decision, and reverting the whole lot of edits, is rather short-sighted. If you'd thought this through a bit more in the first place (and, most importantly of all, got other people to think it through as well through BRFA), and not torn through the pile at such a rate, you wouldn't be in the position of having to look through so many edits to find the bad eggs. Since you have very little else you can do, and the community is going to descend on you like a pack of wolves if your edit rate so much as touches 10epm, I suggest you spend a few hours looking through those 4170 defaultsort edits and sort the whole bloody mess out by hand; because I think I speak for a substantial section of the community when I say that we have no intention of letting you do anything new with automated tools until you've cleared up the mess you've already made. Happy‑melon 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward: Proposal

In my opinion Beta should be allowed to continue using bots. He's done good work in the past and it's central to what he does as a Wikipedian. However, he needs to stop doing large tasks without prior testing and review. Just throwing the idea out, but the community could require beta to do any bot or assisted edits from the bot account only, and only with a suitably-discussed BRFA for the task. Any automated edits on the user account, or any unapproved edits on the bot account beyond 50 edits for testing before a BRFA, results in a block. Thoughts? Gimmetrow 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is acceptable. We don't want BC doing anything unapproved. Really. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds perfect... we should really note that down somewhere, just in case we want to use that again... how about at Wikipedia:Bot policy... oh wait, that's already taken... :D. In all seriousness though, this is, almost word for word, exactly what we require of every other user on en.wiki who works with automated scripts. No large tasks without review and approval, no bot tasks from the main account, any violations result in a block. I'm not joking, this is the status quo. Now why can't we enforce it? Happy‑melon 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - the bot policy was rewritten rather recently to address a loophole, so the dust may not have settled on this point. Also, the way I've phrased the above includes a restriction beyond bot policy. Gimmetrow 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Happy‑melon 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to expect BAG members to know and follow the Bot policy. I think the best solution would be to have the Arbcom gently remind Betacommand of the Bot policy without need for any sanctions and what not. I'm sure Betacommand wouldn't ignore the Arbcom. 96.15.106.42 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you: BAG members should be setting an example with regards to the bot policy: they are responsible for enforcing it, so they should know it inside out, and follow it fully. Happy‑melon 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tihnk the BAG comment was sarcastic. I too agree that Gimmetrow's proposal is a good one. If Betacommand won't accept it, it should probably just be enforced anyway, as part of the bot policy. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melon, bot policy allows users to run assisted scripts on their user account. You should know this, since one of your BRFAs was ended on the grounds it was an assisted script and didn't need approval. This meant users could perform large numbers of edits without approval, so long as they could be called "assisted". The problem is that after a few thousands of these unapproved edits, they can form a critical mass and become a de facto norm. Bots should not be used in this manner for resolving disputes. I would expect, were such tasks proposed for approval as bots, they would be denied. Coren's recent rewrite to bot policy, possibly based on some of my suggestions, made it clear that some assisted scripts are subject to bot policy and do need approval - namely ones editing "fast" or doing "a lot" of edits - due to the effect mass edits can have. Someone who wants to use AWB to split a category with 200 articles, and does it at a "slow" 3 edits per minute, shouldn't really have to deal with a BRFA though. What I've proposed above is that Beta not do any bot or assisted editing from his regular user account, which is more than bot policy requires. If we can keep Beta's future BRFAs from becoming a circus, I think this might be workable. Gimmetrow 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would only support this proposal if the restrictions would actually be enforced. Admins seem to be afraid to block him and when any of his accounts are blocked, the blocks are almost always quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many past restrictions have been uselessly vague. The idea here is less vague and removes the big loophole. Gimmetrow 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not require him to link to the appropriate Bot Request for Approval in all edits made on BetaCommandBot, and restrict him to an edit rate of X edits per minute on any unflagged accounts? — Werdna talk 04:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable to me. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. BetacommandBot is a loose firehose. It is operated irresponsibly and has caused so many problems on Wikipedia I can't list them all. Betacommand is unwilling to follow proper bot procedures and is unresponsive to complaints. It would be absolutely irresponsible of us to continue to allow BetacommandBot to operate. This block should have been done years ago. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I told him about a problem he would stop the bot and fix it. The number of errors were very much a minority, but BetacommandBot was so incredibly active, on so many different tasks, that it gives a false impression of a higher error rate than the average bot. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, BetacommandBot is blocked, and no essential tasks seem to be undone. Other 'bots are now tagging non-free images, and don't seem to be generating complaints. Effectively, BetacommandBot has been phased out as obsolete software. Let's leave the current situation as it is for a month or two and see if there's any remaining need for BetacommandBot. --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are a dozen task BCBot could be doing right now that have not been replaced, I am asking that you let me do what I do best, write and operate bots. Ive got a dozen more bot ideas that Im working on that Id like to get done. having BCBot blocked only does one thing, harm wikipedia. β^_command 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, no editor or bot is essential or needed, but to reject the work BCB can do is moronic. By your logic we shouldn't unblock anyone unless they're vital to the project. My point, on the other hand, was that BCB's error rate is just as low, if not lower, than any over given bot, but people blow it out of proportion due to the high amount of work BCB does. Not only that, but to call BCB obsolete software is totally off. Even without the account running, the code is still being used, right now even. facepalm.jpg -- Ned Scott 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's communication issues

Sub-header changed; was inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)On reflection I agree and support the change MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt this will trigger the immediate response from beta of trolling/personal attacks, but let's be clear about this, betacommand has a fundemental problem with communication. What is the point in continually debating what usernames he can and cannot use, what bot functions he can and cannot operate, whether he is or is not of good enough standing to be a BAG member. He is simply prepared to operate on wikipedia as close to the line as he can manage within his own wikiphilosophy, which departed from the mainstream long ago. He will take temporary blocks accordingly, as an annoyance, not an impetus to change. There never is, and never was, any change in behaviour in this user. Ever. Look at the contributions of this 'new start' (really?) sock account - are we seriously going to call this 'new' user, an invaluable member of the community in these endless debates? The fact is, take away a couple of bot functions, and beta is just an incivil and disruptive user, who has never ever learned from any block or warning. His time has run out. If only there was an admin with the balls to realise this. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, this is getting to be a pain. This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. A vast amount of this conversation has been your aggression. It isn't helpful and it makes the conversation both unpleasant and difficult to read. Please stop your inflammatory comments: if you can't comment in a helpful and productive manner, please do not comment at all. (Hint: the above comment is neither helpful nor productive.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I think MickMacNee does have some valid points here. Betacommand does repeat the same problems time after time, and he does have some communication and civility problems. Let's not lose sight of that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt that for a moment. As I say, This is an on-going conversation. I do not see any willingness to sweep this all under the carpet or forget things. I am purely trying to take some of the venom out of the conversation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen just about enough of your personal attacks, assumption of bad faith, disruption, attempts to create more unnecessary drama, MickMacNee. I strongly suggest you find something else to do here, and stop commenting on anything about, or related to Betacommand. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disprove any 'personal attack' made above. Feel free to give me any reason to assume good faith to betacommand any more (just ignore all the above users while you do that, AGF has a limit as just about anyone knows). Feel free to point out how or where I created any of the last three 'drama' incidents about betacommand. You can't, but never mind that, you won't even want to either. I understand why my attempts at pointing out some basic facts to people might be unnacceptable to you, but to be honest, we might as well file you under /Redvers and /LaraLove in terms of objectivity in this matter, and don't even try to pretend otherwise. I would point anyone looking at this comment from you, to the input you made at the last request for approval of another betacommandbot task. MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you. Do what you will with the warning. I'm not the only one who has had enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, he is not saying anything I wouldn't say. Please talk to him instead of threatening him with a block. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you manage to say things without being offensive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If any of this drama was actualy about actions for being offensive, betacommand wouldn't even be a wikipedia editor anymore. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A warning has to be justified with evidence, otherwise it looks like exactly what it is, a threat. Do what you want, I feel confident you recent edits show that any action by yourself will be biased and unjustified per any reading of any policy. I await the names of the conveniently unnamed supporters, assuming they aren't the obvious users. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sam, you manage to tell MickMacNee that without overt threatening such as "I've warned you. [...] I'm not the only one who has had enough.". Mick, please don't take my defence of you as justifying the tone you are using. Just tone it down a bit and people are more likely to listen to you. Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, you know (I think you know) there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior. People only get so many warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue being, do you honestly seriously believe that the standard of conduct to recieve a warning has been the same between me, betacommand, and any other user? He is untouchable, and what's worse, when he is ever even near being actioned, people's attentions suddenly switch to other people. You cannot expect every person who has ever been pissed off by beta to never contribute to a thread about him, in that case there will eventually be no-one allowed to comment on him. Hence my call for a definitive record of his actions. A perfectly reasonable request in the eyes of anyone remotely unbiased. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"there is a long history with MMN and this type of behavior" - no more so than with others. I think this is something that is over-exaggerated. Surprisingly, on a place like Wikipedia, when you have all the evidence to hand, people tend to go on "reputations", and mud sticks sometimes (for Betacommand and MickMacnee, as well as others). For some, for instance, Giano has been built up to be something he is not. I think the same happens with Betacommand and (to a lesser extent) MickMacNee (and, more similar to MickMacNee, Betacommand's reactions to edits by Locke Cole). I personally don't find MickMacNee's behaviour excessive. I do find those the behaviour of those who jump on him excessive, especially when I find myself agreeing with lots of the things he says. I think Betacommand's reaction to seeing MickMacNee's edits is like a red rag to a bull - and it is Betacommand who needs to take a deep breath and calm down before typing out things like "troll", and it is others who need to stop and think before leaping in to defend Betacommand, or following his "lead". Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do. The page that got deleted after an MfD as an attack page? I was there and I saw what happened. And no, I don't think it was an attack page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Beta is not untouchable. However, some are sympathetic because they think the current dynamic is not all Beta's fault. He's been under attack for a long time, and that's conditioned a defensive posture and a way of working. Unless the goal is to drive Beta of Wikipedia, it's going to take some effort to undo the dynamic that's developed. Some ways of addressing problems are geared to trigger a defensive response, and those continue to play those triggers are not helping matters. That's why I think people are hard on anyone who uses a certain tone against Beta. Gimmetrow 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the obvious fix is for beta to change his behaviour in recognition of blocks/bans/comments etc over 18months-2 years. My point is, he frankly never seems to do this. While others might like to continualy wikilawyer round this issue on a case by case basis, or continualy extend good faith, I would hope the majority actually see it for what it is, intransigence, leading to an impasse between those who accept him whatever, and those who hold the rules are equal for all, but it actually needs admin with the cojones to do something to break this impasse. As said numerous times in just the above case alone, the guy has more lives than two cats. It doesn't help with admins throwing around threats, when as he quite rightly says, Charcs has seen everything that has occured since I first encountered beta, and personally I don't know how he is still surprised when he is greeted with silence from beta on some issue or other. But what is interesting for myself, and something others should know, is that beta was like this well before even I arrived on the scene. Seriously, some of the reservations expressed at his failed second Rfa in September 2007, held around about the time of my joining, are as true today as they were then. No change in behaviour, xero, nada, nip, none. If he actually changed then I would turn the other cheek, as I presume would everyone else. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Charcs"? That's a new spelling! :-) C.A.R.C.H.A.R.O.T.H. 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) PS. I agree entirely with MickMacNee that some change needs to come from Betacommand himself. He might want to see changes in others, but I think if he changes the way he does things, he will see those changes come and the "attacks" on him will decrease. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, Betacommand has been blocked 11 times and the only block that was not reversed was a one-second block. The last 16 blocks of BetacommandBot were all reversed; the most recent non-reversed block was in November last year and for 15 minutes. These statistics suggest that Betacommand is indeed untouchable. Some of the blocks were inappropriate, but most were valid; why were they all undone? Repeatedly undoing blocks is considered wheel warring and is strongly discouraged.

I agree that the main problem with Betacommand is how he communicates with other members of the community. Any questions about his bot or criticism of his actions, no matter how well-intentioned, is, to him, trolling, harassment and drama. If he was more receptive to good-faith criticism and more willing to politely answer queries and discuss his actions, many problems (such as abuse of tools) could have been avoided.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this page is long enough already... is this section really necessary? By the way, MickMacNee, I take great offense at your blatant personal attack on my balls... ;) –Alex.Muller 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, redacted conditionaly per admin upon demonstration of record. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with MickMacNee's statements. Betacommand is unwilling to respond properly to complaints about his Bot edits. He has a loooonnng history of problematic behavior with running unapproved bot tasks and causing big headaches for other editors, but 99% of these problems could be forgiven if he would just be better at communicating and responding to complaints when they are brought to his attention. Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loose ends

A few more loose ends

User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis - the notice should probably be changed.
The block log entry for Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be updated, possibly during an unblock (see below).
Given Betacommand's pledge, User:Quercus basaseachicensis should probably be unblocked to allow Betacommand to put a {{retired}} template on it, although a notice should be left so that people with questions about the edits made by this account can go to User:Betacommand.
The DEFAULTSORT issue, which has now been raised elsewhere on this page. Again, should probably have its own thread.

That is most of the loose ends I'm aware of. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to User talk:Quercus basaseachicensis, I'm not sure which version you saw, but it previously used Template:Checkuserblock-account, which was not an appropriate template for the situation. (After consultation with a CU) I updated it to use a simple {{notice}} that was far more helpful and relevant. But, I have no thoughts / opinions about what should go there in the future. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good Idea Carcharoth. Separates the facts from the drama :D CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed this version I was referring to. The current notice here is much better. It would be tidier to unblock and retire the account, but if Beta is not bothered, I'm not. My main concern here is if someone, months or years later, comes across an edit made by Quercus basaseachicensis, and wants to ask the editor who made it why they made that edit, they can still go and ask BC about it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus basaseachicensis should remain blocked, both to prevent him from breaking his promise and to prevent him from accidentally editing from that account. If a notice (or redirect) needs to be placed on the userpage, other editors can do so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very logical. He could just as easily make another account if he wanted to break his promise. BC made good edits with that account, and it's not fair that it has this block being attached to those actions. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has too many "alt" accounts as it, and I for one am getting really sick of things getting missed because of it (case in point: that he actually violated 3RR on WP:BOT, but it went unnoticed in part because of his use of Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) to perform his first revert). If I had my way, he'd have one account, Betacommand (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood BC's comments, the BC2 account is because his main account .js causes error messages on non-Firefox browsers which are "annoying". Thus a need for a second account(?) The BC2 account has caused confusion in the past (diff's on request) and has questionable utility. The Quercus account was intended to "make a new start", although there is a many-month overlap in the usage compared with the BC account. That account is obviously compromised as a new start, and in fact was never viable if Beta wished to continue operating BCBot, since the owning account must be identified. Neither of Quercus or BC2 are particularly justifiable at this point. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's for BC to decide, not us. Hell, you're allowed to have an alt account so you can pretend to be godzillia and talk differently. If you're really that confused by BC2 then maybe you're thinking too hard. Most editors who make a fresh start aren't going to do so over night. There's lose ends to be tied up with the old account, and you don't actually have to stop editing with the old one as long as you're editing different pages with the second account. Regardless if it's used now or not, BC's good contributions as Quercus should not be tied to a standing indef block that wasn't justified in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something we all missed

Please see here. It turns out that Betacommand had breached 3RR despite at least five people above claiming he hadn't. There was an earlier edit by his User:Betacommand2 account that no-one seems to have spotted. Unfortunately, the other editor (User:Locke Cole) had three unblock requests declined despite pointing out Betacommand's edit warring with socks. Locke Cole was eventually unblocked, but he had retired three minutes earlier. He was understandably aggrieved at the seeming double standards and the lack of proper review, and the disinterest in his pointing out of the edit warring by Betacommand. Could we all (myself especially included) please try harder next time? I've left a strong warning for Betacommand about the edit warring and his use of multiple accounts in this way (it leads, as we have seen, to a lack of scrutiny, no matter how genuine the need is to use an alternate account). Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole's statement

I've proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand, feel free to continue discussion there.

I'm annoyed that people are bending over backwards (and likely making chiropractors rich) to "help" Betacommand, all the while ignoring the obvious and continual disrespect for community consensus and community policy. Someone even went so far as to transclude a portion of his talk page into this discussion so he could effectively violate his block and make a statement visible here. We're talking about someone who has abusively used a sockpuppet in a dispute to evade 3RR (and he's seemingly gotten away with it too, while I was serving a 55 hour block for openly violating 3RR, he was helping folks craft his "punishment" (despite a consensus view that all his alt accounts be blocked)). Someone who has made obvious and unapologetic personal attacks and simply gotten yet another warning (YAW). He calls what's going on here "progress", I call it "a step back". When will the community say "enough is enough" and implement a community ban of Betacommand (or hell, actually let a block expire without admins tripping over themselves for the chance to unblock)? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Locke Cole. The above discussion (which I read in it's entirety) is simply "sound and fury signifying nothing." Nothing ever changes. Betacommand does what he does, misuses his bot, "mistakenly" uses his alternate account in an edit war, is grossly incivil, and--after some ducking and dodging, and some help from his friends--emerges on the other side, unscathed. Meanwhile, many editors he encounters choose to simply fade away. When will this end? Most likely never. How many editors will choose to simply fade away? Who knows? Bellwether ^B _C 08:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of this. I agree that his attitude in this thread has been pretty much devoid of understanding of the very real issues that have been taking place. His offering a particular "deal" is especially demonstrative of that: it gives the impression that it is his condescension that is imposing the limit, rather than the irritation of others. This is out of order. I think there are major issues with the manner in which he conducts his on-wiki affairs to the extent that he should not be permitted to operate bots. (This is the community's decision, not the Bot Approvals Group, if the community wishes to make it.) On the other hand, it is quite absurd to say that allowing Betacommand to make a statement on this page is "block violation" as you do. This is no different from anyone receiving an email from him and posting it on this page -- which would be entirely proper. There is a medium to be found between saying "yes" to the behaviour that has been going on and instituting a community ban: Betacommand does not need to be banned, but the abuses that have been taking place absolutely need to stop. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The page transclusion, taken together with the other circumstances, is the issue I'm trying to bring to light. By itself I would agree that the page transclusion isn't a big deal. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above as well. Whenever Betacommand does something wrong, nothing happens. I don't wanna come across as Dr. Phil, but Betacommand still hasn't owned up to anything he's done wrong. It's always everyone's fault but his. And if we continue to act like clawless and toothless tigers, nothing will change. Betacommand has had two ArbCom cases, there are now two Admin's noticeboard subpages devoted to him. How much more credit and patience are we gonna give him? A ecis^Brievenbus 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Locke Cole. Especially in light of the fact that BC actually violated 3RR to edit-war on that policy page after all. His friends were so quick to get him exonerated that they failed to noticed his abusing yet another of his socks. In summary, the original charge of Abusive Sockpuppetry was indeed Valid. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And hence, BC should be banned, if he isn't already. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur except that I don't think Beta was sockpuppeting abusively, I think he got his windows mixed up while trying to do too much at once. The edit-war and 3RR violations stand, and LC was disproportionately punished (oops, prevented) for their part. The part I do agree with is that in my view Beta shows no intent to modify his approach in a meaningful way beyond the short term, shows no advancement in communication, and still seems to think that it's someone else's fault for "trolling". Franamax (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was an accident through, why not admit it, self revert and deal with it? Instead he proceeded to revert a fourth time (from his Betacommand account) without any indication at all that he'd just used an (as yet unknown) sockpuppet to revert. Worse, once he was found out (and ultimately unblocked) he did nothing to try and rectify the situation with me (of course given all the issues he and I have had, I guess that's to be expected, but the community should expect better); instead he proceeded to engage in self serving discussion, proposing remedies that wouldn't cause him any real inconvenience. Someone who has been through two ArbComs and numerous AN, AN/I discussions should be on better behavior you'd think. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? He knows he has bodyguards to protect him. Bellwether ^B_C 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - C'mon guys - why would he not admit it? Because that is Beta's apparent style. There's no need to jump to abusive-sockpuppetry when there's so much evidence of simple inability to communicate, which is the real problem area. In any case, as was pointed out elsewhere about a different editor, we are talking about a real person, so speculation on their presumed methods and motivations is not appropriate. Lets just talk about the impact on the wiki, OK? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Locke Cole. Up until this point I was generally sympathetic to Beta's situation, but I had a nagging feeling that there was more evidence that would come up. Very upsetting, but sadly unsurprising; this is the inevitable human cost of a Wikipedia career spent as a nuclear powered icebreaker (with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door). I'd suggest a remedy, but we all know nothing will come of it. If 4 years of daily noticeboard viewing have taught me anything, it's that sacred cows are very real, and any sort of protracted public attempt to discomfort them gets you ignored at best, and MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN scrawled next to your name at worst. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bite here, mene, mene, tekel, parsin - I just have to know? Franamax (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See The writing on the wall :) Stannered (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should get ready for the "mene, mene, tekel, parsin" – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - "You have been measured and found wanting", is that the gist of it? Wow, the bible has a saying for everything :) And LC, I won't write it on a wall, I'll disagree up front (over there), Beta has not yet been faced with systematic escalating discipline, no-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot, you are right that BC has essentially been getting a free pass - but that's the issue, nothing has been done to positively modify BC's behaviour. So I'm doubtful that proposing a community ban is helpful, as opposed to proposing lesser sanctions (yeah, I know, it's been tried in this incident). But let's see how your thread plays out, I'll "mene" for now (that's the weighing part, right?). Franamax (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No-one yet has systematically addressed de-tasking BCBot" - I started a section below on that subject, listing all the approved tasks of BetacommandBot. Most of the tasks, and all the critical ones, are now being performed by other 'bots. The de-tasking of BCbot seems to be going well. --John Nagle (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this type of transclusion was routine while CSN was active. It fits in with normal commonsense fairness to give a person a voice in the discussion when his/her head is on the wiki's chopping block. Durova^Charge! 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. How long are we going to tolerate such abusive behavior from Betacommand? Our rules should be enforced uniformly. Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get off the stage BC isn't going to get banned, live with it. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current block status

What with all the blocks and unblocks, it seems necessary to summarize the current block situation.

Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked as sockpuppet by Versageek (talk · contribs).
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). Hundreds of semi-automated or automated edits since unblock.
Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Unblocked by Carcharoth (talk · contribs). One routine edit since unblock.
BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked by Anetode (talk · contribs).

--John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically he's using his main account as BetacommandBot now? Wow. Just wow. Bellwether ^B _C 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, according to User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Clean up using... ?. He's trying to clean up a previous mess he made with one of his 'bots, he's using a customized version of AWB to do it, and his own personal version is buggy. He writes "(Im using a SVN copy of AWB I think I accidentally changed the edit summary)". Several hundred edits were made with the buggy version, and have edit comments of "(clean up using)". --John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if an AWB dev could weigh in here. AFAIK, the only way to disable the "using AWB" appendage, is to run AWB in Bot mode instead of in Manual mode. MBisanz ^talk 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the raw source code which I compile, thus SVN, also you cannot do typo checking in bot mode. I have only make 144 edits either typo fixing or fixing default sort so please dont say its hundreds. β^_command 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the release version of AWB? Until one minute ago you could even use the bot setting on your main account (no idea where that came from, given that BCB is listed as a bot as well). I think all things considered, the only way you can make yourself perfectly safe from criticism here is to do whatever you're doing for the forseeable future the 'old fashioned way'. Certainly using an automated script of any sort would be foolish in the extreme - I'm glad to see that you haven't been making large numbers of edits; but that begs the question of what you're doing with your custom version that you couldn't do with a regular (and bug-free) copy of AWB. Happy‑melon 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SVN allows easier updates and allows me to get bug fixes easier. β^_command 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking an avid technology user why he's using the latest code instead of the last stable release? Really? Who here has beta software on their computer? -- Ned Scott 23:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His username is Betacommand, right? Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was really asking why he was taking the latest version and screwing around with it, rather than using a more stable version. Of course using the SVN version over the older release version is his prerogative, and to the technically competent it can be a good idea for the reasons BC notes above; but I don't see anyone else on-wiki using edit summaries including "(using )" - so it's not (AFAIK) correct to say that Betacommand is just using the SVN version - it's the SVN version with a few added bells and whistles (and, clearly, a few amusing coding errors :D). Happy‑melon 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks performed by BetacommandBot

There have been some questions as to what BetacommandBot actually did. This was its list of approved tasks.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 1

No such task on file.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 2

Change {{s-off}} to {{s-gov}} for specified list of categories.

One-time job; done in 2007.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 3

WikiProject Biography newsletter delivery.

Could be performed by other 'bots, such as DeliveryBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 4

Orphaned fair-use image tagging.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5

Tagging of images without fair use rationale.

Function now performed by BJBot (talk · contribs).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7

Moving of free images to Wikimedia Commons, with appropriate reference updates.

Useful but non-critical function

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 8

Search talk pages for a pre-existing assessment and then add the same assessment to the other project tags on the same talk page.

Useful but non-critical function.

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 9

Replacing all images on en.wiki with commons versions that have the same SHA1 hashes.

Related to Task 7.

--John Nagle (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you missed some. β^_command 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a helpful comment. Anyway, I've located some of the ones that John Nagle missed. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot contains the following four approvals (we can retroactively call them tasks 1a through 1d):

(1a) Collecting external link statistics for WikiProject Spam
(1b) Substing templates listed at WP:SUBST under "Templates that should be substituted" and "Templates that must be substituted"
(1c) Adding WikiProject banners to article talk pages
(1d) Removing or renaming categories according to the decisions of CFD.

(1a) and (1c) were still active up to the time the bot got blocked; I don't know about the others. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we missed a few unapproved tasks, such as flooding the Main Page with useless revisions. Could you please point us to any approved tasks we missed? Tasks 1a and 1c could be easily done by another bot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Move to Commons tasks (7 & 9) are not "non-critical". Moving those images is an important task that benefits other Wikimedia projects, and it saves time of people wanting to move these files to Commons to create media collections on a topic of interest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly non-critical to Wikipedia, although task 7 may be critical to Commons. (Furthermore, I think there were GFDL history problems in the moved articles, and related problems that, if Commons doesn't agree it's free, it gets deleted without being moved back to Wikipedia.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thus question the usefulness of moving images to Commons. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not critical for enWP, but it is an important task for other projects. Part of the Wikipedia mission is to have useful articles in all languages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MTC task was useful and efficient, but the bot did not actually select the images to be transferred. Individual users still have an opportunity to transfer images using User:Krimpet/CH2.js and there is every opportunity for another bot operator to work on the compiled to-be-transferred list using similar methods. Not to mention that Commons and en.wiki have differing standards for allowable images or the fatal flaw of MTC not accounting for the presence/lack thereof of source information necessary to validate free license status. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those problems are not the bots fault; MTC has a list of approved users, and it is those users who sign off on each transfer. It is much simpler for approved editors to approve an image than it is for them to do the transfer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a critical task would stop Wikipedia's normal operations. Not moving images to Commons, while important, doesn't really affect the way Wikipedia operates, it only slows down an interwiki process that can be done by operators on Commons as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think those who defend Betacommand can stop saying that he does good work. To be honest, I think he is no better than Odex. Odex got their just deserts; Betacommand eventually will. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the personal attacks. yeah I never said that what BCBot does is critical. there is one other task that I never filed a BRFA for, WP:DABS and related stats. what BCBot does is provide very useful stats and tasks. β^_command 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hildanknight, enough is enough. I've skimmed this discussion (ie. what's happened since I last commented) and Betacommand has been more civil than you. Please stop. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that moving images to Commons is not a vital task. I don't think a bot should be doing it full stop, but that's probably another story. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You missed some" - the issue as always is that Beta has no idea what is even wrong with that reply, and never will. He does usefull stats tasks like prolonging edit wars over users' wishes not to be included in edit count lists, and duplicating lists that already exist in wikipedia space, in user space. This is how Beta spends the time he has been given to prove he is a valued contributor even without a bot. MickMacNee (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, you dont know what your talking about. the WP space list only has the top 5000 humans (they remove bots). The list I maintain contains every account that has at least 5000 edits. Also please note that my edits are within policy and that the user who filed that report got warned not me. β^{_{command 2}} 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know I don't know what I'm talking about, that would be why the wikipedia space list includes bots would it?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is listed as #1? its not cydebot the account with the most edits. the information presented there is for humans, not all users. the list I created does not filter the information, and contains all users with over 5000 edits compared to WP:WBE that only has the top 4-5k users. β^{_{command 2}} 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list as I see it today has: 1-SmackBot (bot) 1193884, 2-Cydebot (bot) 971146, 3-WP 1.0 bot (bot) 726999, 4-BetacommandBot (bot) 674179, 5-Kingbotk (bot) 437167. So smackbot has more edits than clydebot. Or am I missing something? AKAF (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same. They are clearly bots, although they are not numbered (to be fair to users), but they are still definitely bots. .:Alex :. 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot has 1.2 million plus edits and BCBot has 920,000+ edits so that list is not correct. Also it does not include bots in the counts thus squewing the results, unlike the list that I created. β^{_{command 2}} 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With 920,000 edits and a questionable edit rate of say 5% means 46,000 potential errors. I don't know what the real error rate is, but we are talking about a lot of confused or angry Wikipedia editors. You should expect to get more than a few angry notes on your talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]