Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:42, 29 March 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Billy Ego—Sandstein

Initiated by Billy Ego at 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Billy Ego (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

notified by initiator but didn't confirm it here. It is added in now. -Penwhale

I was unblocked under the condition that I file an arbitration request.

Statement by Billy Ego

I was blocked by "adminstrator" Sandstein because he did not like what I was putting on my user page. I recently wrote a short blurb explaining my POV for the benefit of the Misplaced Pages community. He blocked me for it. So, I replaced it with an explanation that it was deleted and showed the "diff." to show that it was indeed deleted. He blocked me again, that time for 48 hours, with the claim that I linked to it. So after the block, replaced what I had there but minus the "link." There was no link whatsoever to the blurb. There was just this: "To explain my POV for the benefit of other Wikipedians who see the edits I make...(Censored by an administrator)...So that's my POV. I could have hidden it but I feel obligated to share it with the rest of the Misplaced Pages community for the good of the community. I think the more we know about each other's POV the better the encyclopedia can be. Oh, and my favorite band is PULP." Then I put some quotes from a couple famous people on my user page. For that he put a week-long block on me. Tell, me, what policy could I possibly by breaking? He keeps bringing up WP:UP, but that's not even a policy. It's simply a "guideline." What is wrong with having a few quotes from famous people on my userpage? Sandstein is being extremely unreasonable and draconian. There was not even a warning that he still didn't like my userpage before he put the week-long block on.. How was I supposed to know ahead of time that he still didn't like it? He never said I shouldn't have any quotes from famous people on my userpage. How am I supposed to "HE" thinks is appropriate for my userpage? I think Sandstein is letting his administrator power go to his head. He seems to want to force me to configure my user page the way HE wants it, and there seems to be some kind of personal vendetta involved as well. Please do what you need to do with Sandstein, and let me put my short blurb and quotes back on my user page. I was unblocked by another administrator so that I can initiation this arbitration and await the outcome so that I can restore my userpage the way I want it. This is the original blurb I had on my user page: This is the compromise I made that was deleted and for which I was unjustly blocked for a week . I wish to restore more than the compromise version. I want to restore the version I wanted in the first place which is here: You can see Sandstein deleting it in that diff. Thanks. Billy Ego 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that if this case is refused to be heard then Sandstein will come in and block me again when I make changes to my userpage if they don't suit his tastes. If this case is refused to be heard then please advise how to prevent this one adminstrator from forcing his personal tastes on me and blocking me for extended amounts of time. Billy Ego 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

This is a premature request, as no other step in dispute resolution has been attempted. I can't blame Billy Ego for coming here, though, since an admin told him to on his talk page, for reasons I can't quite fathom.

On the merits, this involves my blocking Billy Ego (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) for his putting inappropriate content on his user page, as per the policy WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:UP. Billy Ego self-identifies as a fascist, and has put various content to that effect on his user page, including user boxes, an aquila image, and - that's what this is about - a lengthy political essay and various quotes by Hitler and Mussolini.

I came across this by chance through reviewing an unrelated unblock request of Billy Ego's, and asked him to remove the content. When he declined, I removed essay and quotes for him. This appeared to be supported by WP:ANI consensus here and earlier here.

After essay and quotes were restored by Billy Ego, partially by means of a history link, I blocked him for 48 h and removed the essay and quotes again. An unblock request by him was declined. After the block expired, Billy Ego eventually restored the quotes, for which I issued a one-week block on grounds of repeated misuse of Misplaced Pages resources. In the course of the ensuing unblock request, a reviewing admin referred him to RfAr, and another admin unblocked him with reference to dispute resolution.

I submit that this request is not only premature, but also unfounded and unfit for arbitration (per Kirill Lokshin below), as it concerns a routine admin enforcement of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, an established policy. Even if one were to agree that it is of benefit to the project for Billy Ego to explain his political POV (which, incidentally, does not require a grab bag of Hitler quotes), he could very well do so at any length he desires on another website, to which he may provide a link.

If this request is declined, I intend to continue to enforce the aforementioned policy. However, since it appears that at least some other admins have objected to the manner in which I enforced policy, I agree to make any further administrative actions relating to the content at issue subject to consensus in an appropriate forum such as WP:CN or WP:ANI. Sandstein 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Doc

We allow moderate declarations of POV, but we block trolls and disallow inflammatory use of userspace. Sandstein should have sought, and received, support from other admins, but he realises that. There is nothing more here.--Doc 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Filer notified Sandstein but forgot to come back here and post the diff to confirm the notice. I've gone ahead and posted it for him. - Penwhale | 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note that RfAr was recommended by other editors to Billy Ego as per diffs provided by him and he was only unblocked on condition that he file RfAr and await the outcome before restoring the disputed material. - Penwhale | 08:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

• Reject, nothing to arbitrate here. Misplaced Pages is not a free webhost, and user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute are prohibited in any case. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Per Doc above, "moderate declarations of POV" are allowed and can be useful. However what constitutes "moderate" is debatable. Blocks related to this issue, in all but the most obvious cases, should be based on consensus. Paul August ☎ 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand

Initiated by AnonEMouse at 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• AnonEMouse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 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)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Betacommand
• Chrislk02
• Mel_Etitis

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Betacommand
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Proposal

Statement by AnonEMouse

(Please forgive me if I crossed an i where I should have dotted a t, this is my first RFAR opening.) Betacommand (talk · contribs) is an administrator and expert coder of bots and tools. Unfortunately, he has a long history of controversial use of 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. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Betacommand AGAIN - this time.2C ext. link removals
3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#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. As part of the fallout, he apparently lost Bot approval rights: Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand; Misplaced Pages: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 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to ChrisO

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

Response to Mackensen

By clerk permission! :-) As my response to ChrisO above, and as Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary, and Comment by Chacor below. The individual issues are all or mostly settled, the problem is that they just keep on coming. I'm not even talking about dredging up stuff from November or December. The 3 incidents from my statement were in the last 6 consecutive days. From Bishonen's statement: Misplaced Pages: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 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved badlydrawnjeff

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

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

Response to Mackensen's "flip flopping"

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

Followup by ElC

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mel Etitis

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)

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

Statement by Chrislk02

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

• 27 Nov 2006 - , 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 - HighinBC expresses concerns of Betacommands bolcking habits.
• 20 Feb 2007 - an administror expresses concerns of betacommands blocking and denying of unblock requests in relation to a usernameblock
• 22 Feb 2007 - 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 - 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 , , , , , , 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)

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

Chrislk02's clarification why arbitration is still necessary

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

Chrislk02's response to Nick

I at no point claimed that the username blocks by betacommand were current, merely having occured since the originial 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 , , , and , 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)

Comment by ChrisO

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved user Nick

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

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

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

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

Statement by Betacommand

Ok in regard to username blocks I have almost completely stopped issuing those, and with hindsight I should not have blocked as many borderline users as I did. In the rare cases where I do issue them now they are for obvious reasons. Removing mass external links was inappropriate and should not have happened, as I said on the ANI post I shall seek consensus before removing any external links in the future. The bot operator issue as been solved, the scope and exact task are being reviewed by 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 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

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

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

Statement by user:Irpen

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Alex Bakharev

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

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

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

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Kelly Martin

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

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Doc

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

Comment by Chacor

This comment is in response to Kelly above:

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

Statement by Gandoman

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

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

Statement by Ram-Man

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

Statement by Mets501

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

Statement by Ryanpostlethwaite

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

Statement by Ral315

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

Statement by uninvolved Durova

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

Statement by mostly uninvolved Chick Bowen

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

Clerk notes

Refactored a bit. This really shouldn't be a conversation. Thatcher131 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/1)

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

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

• Flip-flopping again. Are there open unresolved problems related of recent date? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Accept. Paul August ☎ 20:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Appeal of probation

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways was an arbitration case that placed me on probation in relation to highways articles because of a naming dispute that got ugly and out of hand. However since that time I've made over 1000 contributions and edits to the project without any blocks or bans levied against me in that time. Nor have I disrupted or attempted to disrupt any articles, hwy related or otherwise. Page moves have taken place per a consensus that was developed out of this arbitration case, and there is peace at the highways section of Misplaced Pages. I would like to get this block lifted so as to clean my record and allow me to contribute with a clean slate as I would like to continue my contributions to hwy articles. Also I'd point out that the other two active users who were put on probation have also had theirs lifted as well and they had incurred blocks during they probation period, something which I did not have against me. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive to comical . After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page .

More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" .

I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Misplaced Pages want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input?

I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked or warned per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. Durova 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the original article-ban remedy was applied to (among others named) User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204, as well as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." I suggest, unless the AC wishes to make a clarifying statement to some other effect (or the user(s) concerned wish(s) to appeal the original remedy), that the best course would be to have an uninvolved admin review the blocks, with particular regard to whether these are the same editor as sanctioned previously in a similar IP range, and/or have engaged in sufficiently similar behaviour to merit such sanction. Alai 02:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee