Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page, non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Administrators

1) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgment may result in de-sysopping.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Username blocks

2) Username blocks should only be made if there is a blatant infringement of the Username policy. Community input should be sought otherwise.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Seems to reduce the scope of discretion to near zero Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Too strongly worded. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. This doesn't reflect accepted practice. Such blocks are common and frequent. They are rarely controversial. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated editing

3) Various tools exist to partially or fully automate repetitive editing tasks. The Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group (BAG) recognizes three types of bots:

  1. Unsupervised automatic - User runs a bot without being in its presence
  2. Supervised automatic - User runs a bot and watches the edits, but does not have to interact directly
  3. Manually-assisted - User must confirm every change manually

Additionally, editors may use scripts to assist in performing repetitive edits. Generally, scripts require manual confirmation of each edit. Unsupervised and supervised automatic bots require approval of the BAG. Manually assisted bots and scripts may require approval if the editor anticipates making high-speed edits.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Access to automated editing tools

4) An editor who misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns about their use, may lose the privilege of using such tools.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Admin bots

5) Admins should not run bots on their sysop account that are enabled to perform sysop actions (blocking, deleting, etc) without specific community approval from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and/or WP:RFA.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Rightly or wrongly, it appears that the community has spoken and the community wants direct input into admins use of bots. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. The use of such bots has been rare and controversial. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not convinced that this reflects actual practice (c.f. Curps). It's unclear whose approval is actually necessary here, in any case, as we have no real precedent for this. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. As Kirill. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Approval for high-speed automated edits

6) Editors who wish to use semi-automated tools for high-speed editing are advised to seek the approval of the BAG. The Bot policy advises that assisted bots may need to be run under a separate account if many edits are going to be made and may need a bot flag if rapid editing is proposed. "If you have any doubts, it is safer to go through the approval process."

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not helpful without a rigorous definition of "semi-automated"; the term has, in the past, been applied to a wide range of tools, many of which are generally used without any formal approval. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Then let's define the term. Ignoring the issue is not helpful. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Kirill. This is a red herring; see 6a. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Approval for high-speed automated edits

6a) Editors who wish to use semi-automated tools for high-speed editing should be sure that there is both initial and ongoing community support for their activities. Obtaining the approval of the bot approvals group is one way to do this, although informal discussion may be sufficient if the proposed edits are uncontroversial.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Paul August ☎ 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Communication

7) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: giving appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to, and notification messages following, their actions; using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Blocking

8) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrator should be consulted at WP:ANI. Following a block the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification may be appropriate at WP:ANI.

Support:
Paul August ☎ 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC) FloNight's version, 8.1 is better Paul August ☎ 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I'm fine with the concept, but blocks are traditionally reported at the Administrators' Noticeboard, not the incident section. In any event, I see no need to prescribe the method of discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.

Support:
  1. Tweaked wording to eliminate specifics related to notification and broaden to include non-admins. FloNight 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Better. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I believe that this overstates policy.
Abstain:

8.2) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should exercise particular care when issuing blocks. Blocks should be made in accordance with blocking policy, which provides guidance on warnings, duration, and appropriate notice for various situations.

Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Automated image deletion

1) On 27 November 2006, from 17:52 to 19:43 (UTC), Betacommand used an unauthorized automated tool to delete 1,590 images ([1], [2], [3], [4]). He apparently indiscriminately deleted every image which was tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags or talk page disputes concerning whether fair use deletion criteria applied. These deletions were criticized at User talk:Betacommand (see "deletion" through "Block" and WP:ANI ([5]). On November 28, he was blocked for a week by Dragons flight with a block summary of "Using an unauthorized deletion bot" ([6]), and unblocked six and a half hours later by Geni (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) with a block summary of "I don't think he is going to do that again" ([7]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] The image deletions were conducted inappropriately

2) Betacommand's image deletions were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment for the following reasons:

  1. he used an automated tool to edit with bot-like speed from an account that did not have a bot flag;
  2. he used an inappropriate methodology of deleting all images tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags or talk page disputes concerning whether fair use deletion criteria applied; and
  3. he exercised no independent judgment as to the appropriateness of each image deletion.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Point 1 is irrelevant as written; that he did not have approval for the tool may be of importance, but the actual bot flag has no function when dealing with deletions rather than edits. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I believe that the bot-like speed is a relevant finding but agree with Kirill that the presence or absence of a flag is irrelevant.
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that there is a massive problem with the first and third point, depending on how it is used. For CAT:NT and CAT:NS, I used to use to use "Related changes" to see which image tags had been altered since the original tag date, and deal with those manually. After that I would sample a few of the images, and if OrphanBot had delinked all of them from the articles, I would feel safe that all the remaining pictures were unlinked and did fit the CSD. I would then delete them with a script. I know of one former arbitrator who also used this script. Having said this, the second part holds true and is a problem if disputed images are not checked, or the image orphaned images are not checked to see if they have been reinserted.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The image deletions were conducted inappropriately

2.1) Betacommand's image deletions were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment because he used an inappropriate methodology of deleting all images tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags or talk page disputes concerning whether fair use deletion criteria applied.

Support:
  1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tightened wording. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Paul August ☎ 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions

3) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's image deletions on User talk:Betacommand, including Irpen ([8]), Tvccs (twice) ([9]), Visor ([10]), Citizensmith (twice) ([11]), 172.202.174.36 ([12]), Dgies (twice) ([13]), HighInBC (twice) ([14]), Jenolen ([15]), HarryCane ([16]), Wisekwai: ([17]), Zanimum ([18]), Timothyarnold85 ([19]), ceejayoz (twice) ([20]). Betacommand made no apparent direct response to any of the above editors either at User talk:Betacommand or at any of the editor's talk pages. ([21]). The only apparent direct responses Betacommand made to queries on his talk page were to answer technical queries about how the deletions were accomplished ([22], [23]). Betacommand's only other apparent comments on the image deletions were two on WP:ANI ([24], [25]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Inappropriate username blocks

4) Betacommand has blocked large numbers of editors for alleged violations of Wikipedia:username policy. For example, in February 2007, from 15:52, 1 February through 23:05, 27 February (UTC), Betacommand blocked approximately 1,000 editors ([26]). These blocks have attracted numerous complaints on multiple occasions ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). A number of Betacommand's username blocks have been overturned ([32]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. FloNight 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Per Kirill and Mackensen, below, it is worth noting that the vast majority of these were appropriate blocks on their individual merits.
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. The bulk were quite appropriate, and I'm not sure the username policy is really stable, or was at the time. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. As Kirill and the concerns I voiced in the Workshop. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect block summaries

5) Some of the username blocks by Betacommand were appropriate but used an incorrect block summary. For instance, he blocked User:Fatterwhales with a summary referring to the username policy ([33]), while the actual reason for the block was that it was a new account of vandal Fatwhales. The community was unaware of the latter, so overturned the block because there was no violation of username policy.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Not as clear as it could have been, perhaps, but the summary was accurate; account names that resemble those of known vandals are blockable regardless of who the account belongs to. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The username blocks were conducted inappropriately

6) Betacommand's username blocks were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment for the following reasons:

  1. apparent blind application of inappropriate "rules", e.g., blocks for all usernames containing "jesus"([34]), "god" ([35]), "is back" ([36]), more than 32 characters ([37]), etc.;
  2. no prior dicussion on the editor's talk page;
  3. use of the "account creation disabled" blocking feature inappropriately, making it impossible for the blocked editor to create an account with another username;
  4. use of the generic block summary: "Please read our our username policy and choose another name {{usernameblocked}})", when an explanation of how the particluar username failed to satisfy policy would have been more helpful to the blocked editor in attempting to choose another username, as well as facilitating oversight by other editors; and
  5. failure to leave a block message on the blocked editor's talk page.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I believe that this overstates the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. As in FoF 4. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I can support FoF 4 but not this one. I do not want to give the appearance that I disagree in a massive way with each point listed. FloNight 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks

7) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's username blocks at User talk:Betacommand, including Benedict the Moor ([38], [39], [40]), (jarbarf) ([41]), Ryan Postlethwaite: ([42]) and Friday ([43]). Betacommand made no apparent direct response to any of the above editors, either at User talk:Betacommand or at any of the four editor's talk pages. ([44]). One of the few direct responses Betacommand made to queries on his talk page was a short and incomplete reply to a query by HighInBC: [45], [46]. There were four general discussions which included discussion of Betacommand's username blocks: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand, and three discussions at WP:ANI; Betacommand did not participate in the RFC, and participated only minimally in the ANI discussions ([47], [48], [49]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Use of an automated tool to disrupt Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names

8) After complaints about his username blocks on 18 February 2007 and following, Betacommand began using an automated tool that made numerous reports at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ([50], [51]), including several obvious violations ([52], [53], [54], [55]), giving as reason on his talk page, "Im getting tired of being bitched at for no reason. thus I am reporting VERY [sic] block to make sure the bitching stops ..." ([56]). Betacommand was blocked by Pschemp with a block summary: "refuses to stop bot reporting with this account" ([57]) and was unblocked 12 minutes later by Wangi ([58]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Disruption of WP:AIV

9) After concerns were raised about his automated reporting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names ([59]), on 28 February 2007 and continuing through 2 March, Betacommand began to report large numbers of obvious username violations at WP:AIV ( [60], [61], [62], [63]).

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] High-speed removal of external links

10) Beginning on 20 March 2007, Betacommand engaged in high-speed removal of external links. From 22:38, 20 March, through 4:35, 21 March (UTC), he removed 418 external links ([64]); from 14:16, 21 March through 17:34 (UTC), he further removed 2,121 external links ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69]). Beginning at 13:16, 21 March, the link removals were criticized at User talk: Betacommand (See "David Wong" through "Yes, please stop" and following) and WP:ANI ([70]).

On 23 March, from 13:15 through 15:29 (UTC), Betacomand removed 104 external links ([71]) which was again criticized at ANI ([72]), as well as Betacommand's reliance on this survey identifying "doorway domains" for spam. The rapid removal of external links raised concerns that Betacommand was using an unauthorized automated tool on his main account, and also that he was removing links so rapidly that he did not have, or take, time enough to determine if the links were valid.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I do think that the point should be made that it is laudable to explore new means of identifying linkspam. The concern is care, judgment, and community support.
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Inappropriate link removals

11) Many links were removed inappropriately. For example, Betacommand classified as "spam" all links to the United States Agency for International Development's web site: www.usaid.gov, resulting in the removal of the following links: Global Development Alliance homepage from the article "The Global Development Alliance" ([73]), USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance homepage from the article "Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance" ([74]), USAID's page on Hurricane Stan flood relief and recovery efforts" from the article "Hurricane Stan" ([75]), Biography of Andrew S. Natsios from the article on the head of the USAID, "Andrew Natsios" ([76]) and USAID's Iraq page from the article "Foreign aid to Iraq" ([77]), among others.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] The link removal was conducted inappropriately

12) Betacommand's removal of external links was conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment for the following reasons:

  1. he used an automated tool to edit with bot-like speed from an account that did not have a bot flag;
  2. his automated tool was still under development ([78]) and made large numbers of mistakes ([79], [80]), including breaking templates ([81], [82]) breaking list formatting ([83], [84]), leaving empty sections ([85], [86]), and deleting categories and inter language links ([87], [88]);
  3. he used an inappropriate methodology of identifying as spam, all links to web sites listed as having a "spam percentage" above a certain percent, according to a "study" by WebmasterWorld as reported here ([89], [90]); and
  4. links were removed indiscriminately without checking to see whether some of the links were appropriate in context.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I believe this overstates the case. Removing an average of 100 links an hour does not require a bot flag. Using an experimental methodology isn't necessarily bad even if in retrospect it is ineffective. The issue is poor judgment and an inappropriately large test run.
    Actually, as stated in finding 10, on March 21, from 14:16 through 17:34 (UTC), Betacommand removed 2,121 external links, an average rate of just over 640 per hour. Paul August ☎
    Rereading the finding, you are correct. Nonetheless, the speed of removal and the matter of the bot flag do not strike me as being part of the essence of the problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals

13) A number of editors expressed concerns regarding Betacommand's link removals at User talk:Betacommand, including DMighton, wrp103 and Kla'quot ([91]]); intgr and Ehheh ([92]); Rsholmes, Susanlesch and Jordan Brown ([93]); AnonEMouse ([94]); Conti ([95]); intgr (again) and Arichnad ([96]); AnonEMouse (again) ([97]); Mithridates, BigDT, Arichnad (again), HighInBC and taviso ([98]); Angr, Flex, and Violask81976 ([99]); 64.160.39.153 and Fredsmith2 ([100]); LeinadSpoon ([101]); Vanrozenheim ([102]); Fredsmith2 (again) and Onorem ([103]); Ehheh and AnonEMouse (again) ([104]); Gandoman, Chacor, kingboyk and Dbachmann ([105]); George.Saliba ([106]). Betacommand was generally unresponsive to the above editors, ignoring many, giving curt replies to others and generally failing to adequately address the editorial concerns being raised.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] History of inappropriate blocks

14) Betacommand has a history of inappropriate blocks. These include:

  • 21 October: Betacommand's first block came 34 minutes after being made an administrator. After noticing that 69.85.184.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was adding the template " toomuchtrivia" to various pages, Betacommand, with no prior warning, blocked the editor for vandalism and reverted all the editor's edits ([107]). These actions drew the immediate complaints of two administrators ([108]), saying that the template additions were valid, and the editor should not have been blocked. The editor, subsequently unblocked by Betacommand, has not edited since.
  • 21 December: Without warning or prior discussion, Betacommand blocked long-time established editor Irpen (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for "personal attacks" ([109]). Betacommand failed to notify Irpen (or anyone) about the block, and made no comment about the block, on Wikipedia, until nearly a day later ([110]), saying that the block was because of Irpen's comments at WP:PAIN ([111]). This block was criticized at WP:ANI ([112]) and at User talk:Betacommand ([113]), and Alex Bakharev unblocked ([114]).
  • 26 February: Betacommand blocked Hillock65 (talk · contribs) and Chuprynka (talk · contribs), with an expiry time of indefinite ([115], [116]). Betacommand failed to notify either editor about the blocks. These blocks were criticized at WP:ANI: [117]) and Alex Bakharev unblocked these editors ([118], [119]). Chuprynka has not edited since being unblocked.
  • 26 March: Betacommand reverted the removal of a notability tag at Pallywood, ([120]), and warned at Talk:Pallywood that "If a user removes the Noteability [sic] tag before this discusion [sic] above is concluded I will block them for edit waring." ( [121]). Later that day Jaakobou (talk · contribs) removed the notability tag, Betacommand reverted ([122]), and blocked Jaakobou (talk · contribs) for 24 hours ([123]). After criticism of the block at WP:ANI, by administrators Jayjg, Friday, SlimVirgin, jossi, Chrislk02, Mel Etitis and others ([124]), Betacommand unblocked Jaakobou.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Note: per talk page, I've added that "Betacommand failed to notify Irpen (or anyone) about the block" Paul August ☎ 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Note : Added "Betacommand failed to notify either editor about the blocks." and "Chuprynka has not edited since being unblocked" to the 26 February incident. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] History of poor judgment

15) Several past incidents demonstrate that Betacommand has a history of poor judgment:

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. FloNight 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Betacommand admonished

1.1) Betacommand sought to address problems on a proactive and systematic basis, such as by setting up a system that he believed would enable him to block accounts that were highly likely to become vandal accounts based on their usernames, and by creating a script to delete what he believed were spam links. Such systematic efforts to address these matters, which are serious issues for the project, are commendable. However, Betacommand repeatedly implemented the systems he designed while operating with undue haste, resulting in significant numbers of bad or questionable blocks and inappropriate link deletions, and creating serious concern through multiple discussions among a number of editors and administrators; he then in several instances failed to satisfactorily address the concerns raised. Under the circumstances, Betacommand is admonished:

A) To implement username blocks only in cases where:
1. the username, on its face, represents an obvious violation of the username policy;
2. the account, based on the username, was plainly created by an identifiable vandal or troll, and in this case, to briefly and neutrally indicate the reason for this conclusion in an edit or block summary; and
3. in other cases, after seeking consensus on WP:RFC/N.
B) To delete external links only in situations where a violation of the external links policy is clear or the linked site appears on the Meta blacklist, and after removing any link, to ensure that the sense and formatting of the article in question have not been damaged;
C) To abide by the bot policy and to any policy that may evolve from further community discussion concerning bot-assisted edits and the use of scripts;
D) To give appropriate warnings and notification messages, and to respond promptly, fully to good faith questions and criticisms concerning his administrator actions; and
E) That repetition of the conduct that led to this arbitration case may result in further action, potentially including de-sysopping, upon further application to the Arbitration Committee.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Contingent on remedy 4 failing to pass.
Oppose:
  1. Unnecessarily convoluted, and includes restrictions on general editing unrelated to the focus of the case. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand admonished

1.2) Betacommand sought to address problems on a proactive and systematic basis, such as by setting up a system that he believed would enable him to block accounts that were highly likely to become vandal accounts based on their usernames, and by creating a script to delete what he believed were spam links. Such systematic efforts to address these matters, which are serious issues for the project, are commendable. However, Betacommand repeatedly implemented the systems he designed while operating with undue haste, resulting in significant numbers of bad or questionable blocks and inappropriate link deletions, and creating serious concern through multiple discussions among a number of editors and administrators; he then in several instances failed to satisfactorily address the concerns raised. Under the circumstances, Betacommand is admonished:

A) To delete external links only in situations where a violation of the external links policy is clear or the linked site appears on the Meta blacklist, and after removing any link, to ensure that the sense and formatting of the article in question have not been damaged;
B) To abide by the bot policy and to any policy that may evolve from further community discussion concerning bot-assisted edits and the use of scripts;
C) To respond promptly and in good faith to reasonable questions and criticisms concerning his actions; and
D) That repetition of the conduct that led to this arbitration case may result in further action, potentially including banning, upon further application to the Arbitration Committee.
Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Contingent on remedy 4 passing.
Oppose:
  1. As in 1.1. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand admonished

1.3) Betacommand is admonished to exercise due care when using either his administrative abilities or automated editing tools, and particularly when using both simultaneously; and to endeavor to respond swiftly and appropriately to any questions or concerns from other editors regarding his actions. He is cautioned that further episodes of poor judgement may result in the loss of his access to both administrative and automated tools.

Support:
  1. First choice. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand placed on administrative parole

2) Betacommand is placed on administrative parole for a period of one year. If any further evidence occurs regarding abuse of administrator tools, or unauthorized automated script use, he may be blocked for up to one week. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Contingent on remedy 4 failing to pass.
Oppose:
  1. Who would determine that the evidence demonstrated "abuse"? Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not appropriate in this instance. He has effectively been on administrative parole and repeatedly violated it. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand temporarily de-sysopped

3) For poor judgment in making administrative decisions, Betacommand is temporarily de-sysopped for a period of 20 days. After which, his sysop tools will be restored.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Contingent on remedy 4 failing to pass.
  2. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC) I would be OK with this although I think there are sufficient grounds for (4) below.
Oppose:
  1. Punitive. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Wimpy Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Betacommand de-sysopped

4) Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee.

Support:
  1. Paul August ☎ 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. For his overall pattern of "poor judgment" and his "unsatisfactory communication" when valid issues were raised about his actions. FloNight 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. SimonP 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

  • Reminder to arbitrators: When two alternative remedies are proposed and an arbitrator votes to support both, please indicate first and second choice. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • With a majority of 6, there are enough votes to pass remedy 4, Betacommand desysopped.
  • These findings of fact pass
    • 1) Automated image deletion
    • 2.1) The image deletions were conducted inappropriately
    • 3) Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions
    • 4) Inappropriate username blocks
    • 7) Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks
    • 8) Use of an automated tool to disrupt Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
    • 9) Disruption of WP:AIV
    • 10) High-speed removal of external links
    • 11) Inappropriate link removals
    • 12) The link removal was conducted inappropriately
    • 13) Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals
    • 14) History of inappropriate blocks
    • 15) History of poor judgment

Thatcher131 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Updated. Thatcher131 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And principles 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8.1 are passed. Newyorkbrad, updated 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Further update: Principle 5 now also passes. New proposed principles 6a and 8.2 to be voted on. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close, we've passed everything that needs to pass for a sound resolution of the case. FloNight 23:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for now. I think that finding 6 is important and since there are four support votes and no opposes (three abstains), I would like to see it resolved, by Blnguyen or other arbitrators voting, or perhaps some rewording to which the abstainers could agree. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC) to allow for consideration of new proposals by UC. Paul August ☎ 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close, we've done all we can. Fred Bauder 14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Close after 24 hours have elapsed for review of the new proposals. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Close. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)