User:Chrislk02/sandbox2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

My major concern is the innapropriate use of scripts/bot like tools, especially being an administrator. I am going to show evidence of several past instances of possible abuse. These past occurances, probably dealt with at the time, are being used to show a recurring patern of innapropriate behavior.

Contents

[edit] Deletion Bot

The first occurance of innapropriate use of tools starting in novemeber of 2006. Below is a list of deletion logs that I believe show an innapropriate use of a deletion bot or some other innapropriate script, starting with the earliest.

shows many deletions over a very short amount of time. Particularly notice the deletions that occured at 19:42, during that single minute over 34 images were deleted. While I believe it is possible to delete many images per minute, I find it hard to believe that the images were manually deleted. In fact, another administrator, Dragons flight blocked Betacommand for 1 week with a block summary stating, "(Using an unauthorized deletion bot)." Several hours later, Betacommand was unblocked by Administrator Geni with an unblock summary stating, "(I don't think he is going to do that again)." This I believe is the first in a series of, while possibly good faith, very poor decisions made by Betacommand. I think it is important to notice that these actions were done using administrative tools (delete function).

[edit] Username Blocks - Instantaneous

After this, Betacommand slows down a little bit from what I can see and does not do too much that is controversially innapropriate. However, In February of 2007, Betacommand began again. Most notably with the blocking of new users whose usernames were innapropriate. It is my belief that he used some sort of reporting script and blocking tool, that worked either autnomously or semi autonomously that blocked users with innapropriate substrings in there name. While many of the username blocks were 100% appropriate, there were many good faith names that did not violate policy or community consensus at the time that Betacommand took it upon himself to block. Below are some excerpts from block log of username blocks that seem to not violate policy, over an extended period of time

  • 03:48, 11 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Wowwoweeewow (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name {{usernameblocked}}) (Unblock) [1]
  • 0:37, 10 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Blabber mouth katie (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name {{usernameblocked}}) (Unblock) [2]
  • 01:03, 4 January 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Charbroil666 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our our username policy and choose another name {{usernameblocked}}) (Unblock) [3] Now, I am unaware of any consensus to instantly disallow usernames with the numbers 666 in it. If there was a policy against this, I have no problem recidning this part of the complaint. However, there is a pattern of any names containing 666 being blocked. Here are several others that were also blocked. 666possum, Metal Warrior666, Rageaddict666. This is just the tip of the iceburg with this issue.

Now, the username blocks in and of themself are only part of the issue. What I find disconcerting is the fact that usernames blocks like the block of User:666possum, an account that was registered 06:30, 3 January 2007 and subsequently insantly blocked at the exact same time. Given no option to change their name, just instantly blocked. There are many other occurances of this riddled throughout his block log. It is my belief that the instant blocking names such as the ones listed above hurts wikipedia more than any innapropriate username that sits around for an extra hour and further shows evidence of misuse of a script or bot that uses administrative tools.

[edit] Username blocks - Community involvement
  • On 13:19, 18 February 2007, User HighinBC expresses concerns over a recent streak of username blocks that were overturned at WP:RFCN on betacommands usertalk page. This thread can be found here.
  • On 02:16, 20 February 2007, User BigDT expresses concern over the fact the Betacommand deleted a userspage, after usernameblocking them, and covering up there unblock request through page deletion. This thread can be found here
  • On 19:50, 22 February 2007, Betacommand starts autoreporting usernames to WP:RFCN in an essence flodding it with margianl names, some with are obvious blocks and nobody complained about, which could have been reported to WP:AIV or other places. This actions further supports my suspicions that Betacommand was using a script or some sort of bot that was blocking innapropriate usernames. here are his contributions during the period of auto reporting Note, he makes it very obvious that it is an autoreport from the edit summaries.
  • On 21:45, 22 February 2007, betacommand is blocked by User:Pschemp with a block summary stating, " (refuses to stop bot reporting with this account)". here is some dialogue involving other administrators in regards to this block, and innapropriate actions. I think it is important that several people believed Betacommand to be violating WP:POINT due to the recent scrutiny of his blocking actions. In this situation, he trhew every blatantly innapropriate username to the community, clogging up both WP:AIV and WP:RFCN with blatantly obvious names. Names that nobody complained about his blocks of.
  • On 21:57, 22 February 2007, User:Wangi unblocks betacommand with an unblock summary stating, "(rm inappropriate block)".
  • On 15:21, 28 February 2007, after complaints of flooding WP:RFCN with names that should be obviously blocked, betacommand starts flooding WP:AIV with usernames. contributions from this time period. I think it is of special interest to note this edit where he floods aiv with over 20 very obvious block names. Names that NOBODY would question blocking of.

[edit] Rapid Blocking

While it has been brought to my attention that it is possible to perform such rapid blocks, I think that this excerpt from the block log is relevant, especailly in allegations of using scripts or bots innaprriatley.

  • 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)

[edit] Bot external link deletions

  • 21 Mar 2007 00:01 - 17:34 [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] a series of 3,000 external link removals at bot like speeds with many per hour.
  • 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User%7EChrislk02_sandbox2_af9d.html"