Case Opened on 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• AnonEMouse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
• Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mel Etitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Parker007 (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

Betacommand (talk · contribs) is an administrator and expert coder of bots and tools. Unfortunately, he has a long history of controversial useof both bots and admin tools (the RFC above is related).I was only made aware of him in the last week, and in that time he has shown up three times on the WP:ANI board; they're enough for me to bring this RFAR.

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Betacommand AGAIN - this time.2C ext. link removals
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive220#Betacommand questionable blocking

The first incident, on March 21, had Betacommand apparently using a computerized tool from his own account to remove links to usenet groups across hundreds of articles, without discussion. His edit speeds have been estimated at 30 edits per minute. Many editors quickly showed up at his user talk page to complain; his responses were minimal, curt, or entirely lacking, and the deletion went on at high speeds. (See User talk:Betacommand/20070301#Removal of Usenet posts and the following 3 sections.) He stopped after I posted on his talk page emphasizing I was an admin and this was an official warning; I was ready to block him if he didn't stop to discuss, and made an "emergency" post on AN/I asking for review of the impending block. In the face of extensive later criticism, mostly on AN/I, he rolled back most or all of his edits. I was happy with that, thought that would be the end of it, and even thanked him for doing so the next day I edited.[1] As part of the fallout, he apparently lost Bot approval rights: Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand; Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging

The second incident, on March 23, he again used a computer assisted tool, no longer at 30, but still at 5 to 15 edits per minute, removing other external links across unrelated articles, including to the official site of USAID, a US government agency, apparently based on a third party article about spam links in Google. He claimed on AN/I he was doing this without the aid of a bot. Given two similar incidents in three days, and the fact that removal of Bot rights didn't seem to help, several people discussed a community ban. Instead, I made a proposal that he roll back his controversial edits, and promise not to go on any mass deletion sprees without discussion beforehand, or approval by another experienced editor. He rolled back his edits, but did not agree to the last condition. He also did not apologize, accept that his actions were wrong, or promise not to repeat them, stating merely that he was debugging his tool.

The third incident is today, March 26. He has apparently blocked a user for participation in a content dispute. After mass criticism on AN/I by many admins, he unblocked the user, without admitting that he was wrong. That same page, today, uncovered issues with apparently automated blocking users for username violations. User:Mel Etitis apparently blocked Betacommand for this, or a combination of these actions.

AN/I consensus seems to be that these recurring issues demand further action, and that Betacommand has lost the community's trust as an admin. If the community noticeboard could take intermediate steps besides outright ban, I'd take it there. As far as I understand, it can't. Apparently stewards won't desysop someone without an arbcom ruling either. Betacommand is a well-meaning user, and a skilled bot developer, who has the community effect of a porcupine in a nudist colony. Hopefully some kind of intermediate action besides outright ban will be enough to de-quill him. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ChrisO

I'm actually not that interested in considering the incidents separately; separately they're each, not good, but everyone makes mistakes. I'm concerned with a long history of disregard for other users (see above and below). I'm concerned with 3 major (look at the people involved in each!) AN/I incidents in 6 days, without a single "I understand", "I was wrong", or "I won't do it again". I'm not interested in punishing him for what he did, that can be fixed, or has been fixed. I'm concerned with preventing the next one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mackensen

By clerk permission! :-)As my response to ChrisO above, and as Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary, and Comment by Chacor below. The individual issues are all or mostly settled, the problem is that they just keep on coming. I'm not even talking about dredging up stuff from November or December. The 3 incidents from my statement were in the last 6 consecutive days. From Bishonen's statement: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive208#Trigger-happy_blocking_by_Betacommand is another big todo, Feb 27-28, less than a month before. Chris's list of incidents below fills in the spaces between that. :-(. I'm not asking for a ban, but we need something, maybe probation, maybe a formal reprimand, maybe a temporary desysop, but something with teeth. Each time people assume he's learned and it won't happen again, but the issues just keep coming. Like a bull in a china shop, every time he turns there's a loud crash. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[With regard to Tony Sidaway's (initially) only comment on the issue.] Ah, history slipping in here a little. I suggest that you look at the facts of the matter, including my message at WP:AN/I in which I explained the mistake behind my block, and asked if people thought that I should unblock. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this RfArb, I can only add that, like many editors, I've watched a series of problems arise because of Betacommand's inappropriate use of bots and now blocks, and it seems to a large proportion of the many admins and other editors commenting on him at WP:AN/I that it's inappropriate that he should continue to be trusted with admin tools. It may be that he simply needs more experience before being allowed them, it may be that he's temperamentally unsuited — I don't know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent timeline of suspicious, controversial and possible innapropriate actions by betacommand many that I have been involved with, witnessed and or confronted betacommand about.

• 27 Nov 2006 - [2], and following logs. Started deleting images upwards of 20 per minute for a time period deleting updwards of 500 images over a short period of time.
• 28 Nov 2006 - betacommand is blocked and then unblocked for running an unauthorized deletion bot. The unblock comment states, "(I don't think he is going to do that again) "
• 18 Feb 2007 - [3] HighinBC expresses concerns of Betacommands bolcking habits.
• 20 Feb 2007 - [4] an administror expresses concerns of betacommands blocking and denying of unblock requests in relation to a usernameblock
• 22 Feb 2007 - [5] in his contribs where he pretty much started auto reporting all usernames that had been blocked before to WP:RFCN in what was believed to be to make a point. This was mentioned at WP:ANI and on his talk page
• 22 Feb 2007 - comment I left regarding bad usernames. Situation where betacommand made a point, only sees things in black and white.
• 22 Feb 2007 - [6] a thread where I expressed my concerns over blocking habits, point violations and other concerns I have had.
• 23 Feb 2007 me expressing concerns in regards to the probably use of a blocking bot by beta command.
• 8 Mar 2007 - A series of 9 blocks in 1 minute, very improabbly all were done manual with proper review.

*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.13.50 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "202.58.63.200 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming)*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.109.49.47 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.243.12 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "121.44.236.252 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "210.11.241.21 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tuddy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Voyages (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) *: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Svm-en (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming)

• 21 Mar 2007 00:01 - 17:34 [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] a series of 3,000 external link removals at bot like speeds with many more per hour than humanly possible at times.
• 21 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding link deletion at bot like speeds.
• 23 Mar 2007 13:16 - 17:37 -Fairly rapid remval of abou 200 (appprox) external links in a similar manner as objeted to on the previous ani post. This action stopped when he was warned of a block again.
• 23 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding external link removal.
• 26 Mar 207 - most recent ANI posting regarding innapropriate block of a user editing an article he was engaged in.

I think all of these actions, plus several other pas actions which I have not summarized here (his block log includes 3 blocks for unatuirhorized bots). There are also several other username blocks that many users have expressed concern over. usernames such as user:Chrisgodwin was blocked. It was later unblocked with a WP:RFCN, however it opens the question what led him to block. Having God in the name will often lead to a block but godwin is an appropriate name. There are many other blocks that were questionable. After every occasion, betacommand has generally re-started the questionable behavior until threatneed with a block again. I have asked him nicley what is going on before and got a nice answer however the actions did not stop. I belive that any administrator willing to block without personal review or just block a name because it contains the substring of a possible offensive term is more of a detrmiment to this project than any innapropriate name that spends an extra 20 minutes around because it is blocked manually. 1 instance would be ok, 2 instances would be ok. There are multiple instance where this editor/administrator has abused there power and I have serious concerns about what will hapen in the future. Other things that will hurt this project is automated removal of content, and testing bots/script debugging on live articles. This may have been addressed but his willingngess to use the project as a sandbox for his development is also innparopriate. If even a fraction of the over 3,000 link removals were eroneous or left mistakes, it would take a significant amount of time to go behing and clean it up. And, in fact, many of those edits were erroneous and his talk page at one time had 10+ complaints regarding these actions. The next day, the actions started again. I have never once heard him admit that what he was doing is wrong, however justified it every time. I think it is important, especially for an administrator, to admit when they may have made a mistake. I do not think there is anything preventing betacommand from developing a a new script that will leave a wake of disaster and forcing the rest of the project to cleanup the mess. There are certain sites that should be removed, blind removal by a poorly developed tool at bot like speeds is innapropriate. There is a reason there is a bot approval process.

In summary, betacommand has shown repeated abuse of administrator tools over a period of time including blocking and deleting as well as abuse of Bot policies. If it were n isolated incident, i would be more likley to drop it but these incidents have occured over time which leads me to believe that betacommand should not be entrusted with the administrators tools.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a further clarification, i respect Betacommands contributions to this community. I have no vendetta against him and would actually not like to see him immediatly de-sysopped. My concerns posted here are only for what I feel are actions that have and, should similar actions be repeated, permanently damage this community. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary

As a further clarification, I believe that this request for arbitration is still necessary as an review of his behavior and for a final ruling. He has got many "Dont do it agains," which have gone unheeded. While I feel an immediate de-sysop is innapropriate, I feel that this should be a last, "Dont do it again" that is endorsed by the community and the arbitration commitee. The many message left at ANI and on his talk page have apparently been left in vain. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrislk02's response to Nick

I at no point claimed that the username blocks by betacommand were current, merely having occured since the originial WP:RFCN had been opened. My orignial ANI posting may have been poorly worded, but I later clarified it. And, actually after realizing that Mel's block of betacommand was possibly due to my poor communication, I contacted mel and attemplted to clarify myself and expressed concerns that I felt the block was innapropriate and that betacomamnd should be unblocked. Any users that I unblocked [14], [15], [16], and [17], I gave several hours for comment by the community and closed only the ones with a clear consensus to allow. I did not unblock any users without requesting the communitys input, and only proceeded when I was sure that the community wanted said users unblocked. My concerns of acting without community consensus are the reason for my ANI posting, and I was actually told that I should just unblock them if I felt it innpropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok in regard to username blocks I have almost completely stopped issuing those, and with hindsight I should not have blocked as many borderline users as I did. In the rare cases where I do issue them now they are for obvious reasons. Removing mass external links was inappropriate and should not have happened, as I said on the ANI post I shall seek consensus before removing any external links in the future. The bot operator issue as been solved, the scope and exact task are being reviewed by WP:BAG. And to make a clarification I have never abused my bot account User:BetacommandBot.

In regard to the Pallywood issue I made a mistake. I attempted to stop what I thought was an edit war over a {{notability}} tag. Not thinking that protecting the page made since the whole conflict was over a template, I added the template back (I assumed in good faith that the tag was valid) and left a note on the talk page warning the involved parties that they needed to solve the issue on the talk page and not revert war about the tag. Since I did not protect the page, (I hoped valid edits could continue) on the talk page I left a note saying that continued revert warring would get the person blocked. Less than 24 hours later a user removes the template. Seeing this as a continuation of the edit conflict I blocked the user in question for 24 hours. I was attempting to contain the revert war and promote discussion. I see now that how I handled the issue was a mistake. I should have left the page the way I found it and full protected it and filed a RFC on the issue. I have not looked too deep into this dispute. On Hindsight I should have done a more through examination of the issue before acting. I attempted to step in a stop the edit war without enough information. That was a mistake and I don’t plan on that happening again. I am sorry for how I handled the issue, and should have been more careful of my actions. As what appeared to happen here was that I was using admin tools in an edit dispute. That was not my intent, and I shall be very careful in the future to avoid the appearance of admin tool abuse, and I shall be very careful in the future to avoid similar problems again. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BOT Policy esp WP:BOT#Assisted_bots, it clearly states that a bot account is not required. I quote from the policy "Assisted bots are defined as any software that allows rapid editing of articles, while not saving any changes without some human interaction." and "Assisted bots don't necessarily need bot approval."

I shall now quote a statement from the initiating party User:AnonEMouse The first incident, on March 21, had Betacommand apparently using a computerized tool from his own account to remove links to usenet groups across hundreds of articles, without discussion. His edit speeds have been estimated at 30 edits per minute.

I therefore conclude, per the policy WP:BOT, human assisted bots have no policy grounds for any action taken against them, if they are human assisted bots.

Sincerly,

--Parker007 03:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)

• Accept. Code is law, thus bot writers have a particular obligation to the community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the fence, per ChrisO's and El C's comments. I myself have blocked at high speed before, usually after a checkuser run. As I understand it Betacommand's BAG privileges are under review, and I should think he's got the message by now. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to accept. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Flip-flopping again. Are there open unresolved problems related of recent date? [time passes] I'm not convinced that the attention of the arbitration committee is required here. I see many different possible problems–some addressed by the community, some not, but none beyond the community's grasp. People of good judgement disagree on many of issues raised here–does the community want to sacrifice its judgement on these questions? Ceremonial reject. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. Paul August ☎ 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Charles Matthews 18:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)