User:MBisanz/DraftRFAR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the evening of Thursday May 15th SQL approached me with the concern that he believed a user we both knew was violating the WP:SOCK policy. He indicated that he believed Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of Betacommand (talk · contribs). Earlier in the day I had noticed that Quercus basaseachicensis made some unusual edits to Wikipedia:Bot policy and suspected it was a sock of some user I did not know. SQL and myself began independent parallel investigations of the suspected sockpuppet account, focusing on the nature of its edits timing, edit summaries, as well as the grammatical syntax used in discussion commentary. In particular, we identified the following edits that appeared to indicate a sockpuppet:

  • [1] - On its fifth edit, the account installed Twinkle in its Monobook.js page.
  • [2] - On its ninth edit, the account recognized that bot accounts post automated messages and that this message was incorrect.
  • [3] - On Feb 23, 2008, the account tagged am image as failing fairuse compliance. This was the only edit the account made to the Image: namespace.
  • [4] - On May 15, 2008, the account reverted the edit of Locke Cole (talk · contribs) to bot policy with the edit summary revert it is current practice and does have conseus stop POV pushing. This was the only time the account edite WP:BOT. Locke Cole reverted this edit five minutes later. Fourteen minutes after this revert, Betacommand reverted to Quercus basaseachicensis' version with the edit summary Revert to revision 212605633 by Quercus basaseachicensis.


  • [5] - On May 14, 2008, the account requested and was granted rollback rights. On March 7, 2008, Betacommand's rollback rights were removed due to abuse of the tool and on March 8, 2008 the rights were removed from his alternate account Betacommand2 (talk · contribs)


  • [6] - On October 8, 2007, the account made an edit to Talk:KFAN stating: If that is true please source that.
  • [7] - On May 14, 2008, the account made an edit to its talk page stating: the source it. unsourced edits will be removed.
  • [8] - On May 15, 2008, the account made an edit to its talk page stating: please double check your info. I was reverting vandalism
  • [9] - On the same day, the account made another edit stating: since when is vandalism reverting un-constructive?
  • [10] - On March 1, 2008, the account made an edit to its talk page stating: you dont seem to understand, I did not change anything. I just re-arranged things without changing how they appear in categories. in response to a complaint over the default-sort tagging run it was in the midst of performing.
  • Based on each of our interactions with and knowledge of Betacommand, we identified the comment style, as well as the use of automatic edit summaries as similar to his style [11], [12].


  • [13] - On March 1, 2008, the account made the comment: Geo Swan, I was just adding default sort to pages where sort keys have already been give. Im not adding it to pages without defaultsort.
  • [14] - Also on March 1, 2008, the account said: Geo Swan your not listening, I only added default sort to pages with a single sort order. if pages have multiple sort orders I dont add a defaultsort. I did not change anything on the one example that I gave.
  • I identified that Betacommand, in forums such as IRC frequently makes statements in the form of Name_Statement, even when it is clear the identity of the subject being addressed.

Based on this data, we contacted checkuser Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) in a private IRC channel. After presenting the data to Dmcdevit, he performed a checkuser on the account. The result he provided was that Betacommand and Quercus basaseachicensis were the same user.

SQL and myself proceeded to discuss what action to take. Given that the account had been operating for 8 months and that Dmcdevit knew of no special reason Betacommand would be permitted to have a separate account to perform functions identical to those on this main account (such as ref fixes, default sorts, and technical fixes) we felt some action was warranted. To us this violated the letter of WP:SOCK in prohibiting a user to operate a good-hand/bad-hand set of accounts to avoid scrutiny. As the types of edits were identical on both accounts we rejected the idea that this was an account to separate edits to a controversial subject. Further, in requesting the Rollback flag on the sockpuppet account, he violated userrights policy by deceiving an admin into granting the right to an account controlled by a person whose right to that flag was revoked for abuse.

Further, we recognized that Betacommand is a very skilled technical programmer who has specialized software capable of editing up to 700 times per minute. In the past, when angry, he has reacted rashly, using his bot to launch a spam attack on a user's talk page as this committee found in RFAR_BC_2_FOF_4. Additionally, he has been harassed by users who disagree with Wikipedia's non-free image policies. We felt that alternative courses of action such as a public SSP or RFAR could lead to a coat-rack for personal attacks on Betacommand. Additionally, we felt that if we were to leave any of the accounts unblocked or even flagged, they could be used to execute attacks on the project at large. Therefore we decided that I would execute simultaneous blocks on all four of his accounts, Betacommand (talk · contribs), Betacommand2 (talk · contribs), BetacommandBot (talk · contribs), and Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs) while SQL would post a notice to WP:AN. I further removed the Rollback flag from Quercus basaseachicensis and BetacommandBot. Further, I requested a Bureaucrat remove the bot flag from BetacommandBot per the evidence posted to WP:AN. I made this request on my own, as a user and did not indicate it was a request made on behalf of, or in my role as a member of, The Bot Approvals Group.

Following an extensive community discussion in which Betacommand indicated this sock account was for the purpose of him transitioning to an account lacking the previous bad-conduct associated with the Betacommand account, and with my assent, Carcharoth (talk · contribs) unblocked the main account and asked the community to discuss the remaining account.

Several hours later Betacommand approached me in a private IRC channel and requested that I lift the blocks from the Betacommand2 and BetacommandBot accounts and instruct a Bureaucrat to restore the flag, within 24 hours, or else he would initiate an arbcom against me. I felt this coercion created an insurmountable conflict of interest to me acting in any administrative function towards this situation, and was in violation of my previous assertion that I would abide by the community's decision re: the blocks. I therefore asked uninvolved administrators in #wikipedia-en-admins to review and handle the request. They declined to alter the status quo, indicating the community was discussing the matter and it should be left to them.

Following his unblock, Betacommand's first actions were to use, by his admission, a modified copy of AWB to override the program controls and edit in a manner that would conceal his use of high speed auto-editing tools from discovery. He claims the reason was to permit him to incorporate new changes in the AWB code when editing, however that does not explain his suppression of the AWB edit summary, nor his listing as his main account being a Bot at the AWB check page.

Within a few days of being unblocked, he had been reported for violating 3RR, edit warred with admins during a DRV by recreating the deleted page 3 times during the DRV, abused automated editing tools here by reverting good faith edits as vandalism, and exercised a high degree of ownership in refusing to abide by consensus over removal of individuals names from edit count lists.

I believe I have acted in a transparent manner in this matter, fully explaining the situation first to the CU and then in responding to parts of the AN discussion. Per Durova's request I modified Betacommand's talk page and AN so that users would be able to see his response following the block. Following Carcharoth's unblock I restored Betacommand's monobook at his request, which I had deleted due to its complex nature that I could not rule out as abusive code. Further, I restored his name to the protected lists of VandalProof Moderators and Image renaming users. I feel that SQL and myself acted in the best interests of protecting the project, and that Betacommand has violated several policies.

Specifically he operated an undisclosed alternate account for several months while continuing to operate his other known accounts. WP:SOCK provides for a user to switch accounts to start fresh, but mandates that they may only have one identity at one time. Further, over these 8 months, he was blocked 3 times and underwent a prior Arbcom case. Therefore he operated in a goodhand/badhand account manner, with Betacommand/Betacommand2 being the badhand accounts and Quercus basaseachicensis remaining the goodhand account. Others have suggested he operated his bot program on the goodhand account, in performing the defaultsorts and reference tagging, in violation of WP:BOT policy. He deceived administrators by requesting rollback on the goodhand account, after it had been removed for misuse on the badhand account. He misused his userspace and automated editing tools to edit war with other users against community consensus. Finally he attempted to coerce and disrupt my work on Wikipedia, in threatening to file an RFAR if I refused to unblock, in direct violation of Wikipedia:HARASS#Threats.

I am willing to submit IRC logs to the committee relating to these matters upon request and would request the committee consider adopting some range of remedies, such as a 3 month editing ban, revocation of all automated editing tools and requiring committee approval for reinstatement, imposition of an account restriction against operating multiple accounts such as Betacommand2, imposition of a topic ban related to semi and automated editing, revert limitations, civility restrictions, or even probation/discretionary sanctions. MBisanz talk 05:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I hereby certify that the parts involving me are accurately represented. SQLQuery me! 07:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)`