Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This RFC has been closed and re-opened.

I request that this Rfc is closed for the minute to give User:Betacommand time to explain his actions RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the initiator's request, this RfC is closed and de-listed to allow time for discussion elsewhere. If that discussion is not successful, the RfC can be reopened. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Per the above and discussion at User talk:Ryanpostlethwaite I've reopened this. Seems appropriate to continue using this page instead of starting a new one, since it's the same issue. Friday (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not the same issue; the original issue was the narrow one of blocking supposedly inappropriate usernames. Let's be clear that this time it's about Betacommand's use of the block button altogether — a related issue, to be sure, but a more important one (IMO). The phrasing below isn't always relevant to this larger issue, and therefore I'm not sure that re-using the original RFC is the best way. But hopefully we'll be able to lick it into shape. Bishonen | talk 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Now reopened RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Attempts by Betacommand to address issue

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Desired outcome

Betacommand needs to not make inappropriate blocks any more.

[edit] Description

Betacommand is a very established administrator who does great service to wikipedia in stopping some very clear username violations from being able to edit. However, over the past week, there have been many usernames blocked by him that are in no way violation of username policy (it should be noted, that these blocks were meant in good faith).


Betacommand originally blocked these editors on site, without a request for comment;

This was followed up with WP:RFCN's being filed by concerned editors and requests for betacommand to comment were put on his talk page. He did comment on a couple of these names here.


Depite concerns being raised at this point, there has been continued blocking of users without requests for comment;


By blocking these users, it is highly likely that they will stay away from the project even though they may have been potentially very good editors. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Post the initial RFC filing there has been 2 discussions on WP:AN/I regarding this [1] [2]. Beta command has continued to block users without consenting the community and post discussion with him, the following blocks have been placed upon users for username violations that do not appear to be against WP:U


There has also been a suspected sock puppet case in which Betacommand blocked users without sufficient evidence that they were socks, the users in question are;


There has also been questions of blocks raised in November 2006 for username blocks


Once again, I reiterate that these blocks were meant in good faith, however, the community has given betacommand admin tools with the understanding that he understands policy fully, however, there is evidence to suggest that he does not understand WP:U, by which he has placed most of his blocks RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Block log of User:Is he back?
  2. Block log of User;Alrite Darling U Gd?
  3. block log of User:Dani casale*
  4. block log of User:Fatterwhales
  5. block log of User:Chrisgodwin
  6. block log of User:*gvan !!!
  7. block log of user:Clevercutie;)
  8. block log of User:Asdf555
  9. block log of User:B;uedog
  10. block log of user:IHateItAroundHere
  11. block log of user:Hillock65
  12. block log of user:Chuprynka

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:U
  2. WP:BITE
  3. WP:BLOCK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

When this topic came up recently, I suggested that Betacommand hold off on blocking while it's being discussed. He did not respond. More recently, I outright asked if he would stop blocking. He did not respond. Taking a quick glance through my previously communications with Betacommand, I found the thread at User_talk:Betacommand/20061017#Reasons_for_block_of_User:Respect_My_Authoritah.21_.3F dating back to early November. Here, there were inappropriate username blocks mentioned. Betacommand did participate in this thread, but never said anything resembling "Whoops, I'll be more careful from now on". Looking at his blocks since that time, it's clear he's still not using adequate judgment. Friday (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has now stated that he's stopping with the username blocks, so my comments above that he did not respond isn't very accurate anymore. Friday (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps not the identical issue, but closely related: WP:RFCN saw a number of Betacommand's username blocks for which we simply could not see any WP:U violation, and for which Betacommand had recorded no specific reason beyond "usernameblock". My suggestion to Betacommand on his talk page (21 February 2007) was that he use the optional parameter in the {{usernameblock}} template to specify the exact reason (not just "usernameblock") when blocking. This received no reply. My other comment on his talk page (22 February 2007) was that he had left account creation blocked when requiring username changes by users he had blocked, despite the fact this left them unable to create new accounts to comply with his instruction. "I didn't try counting how many blocks need to be revisited to enable account creation, but it looks like a lot. Will you be able to fix this on your own?" This also received no reply. These topics came up again in the "WP:RFCN has lost its marbles" thread on WP:ANI (in comments 25-26 February 2007, specifically [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), where I repeated the comments and again received no direct reply -- though Betacommand did address one of those issues when replying to another: "In regard to the account creation issue that was a bug in the code that I use for blocking users this was raised and I fixed it." This leaves unclear whether all the users already blocked have had their account creation re-enabled. I have no personal problem with Betacommand, I commend his devoting so much energy to his work for the community, I am not requesting or suggesting any kind of rebuke or other disciplinary action, I would prefer this entire discussion remain non-adversarial, but I would like to know that any remaining old account creation blocks are revisited and fixed where appropriate, that questionable blocks get explained, and that henceforth the specific reasons will accompany the blocks -- because so far the one most common pattern I've been able to see in these blocked usernames is that many contain punctuation or other non-alphanumeric characters, which isn't a WP:U violation; this leaves me uncertain that we're playing by the same rulebook. -- Ben 08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Friday (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ben 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC) -- regarding the closely related issues I mentioned just above.
  3. Sarah 12:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Proto ► 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ben 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC) -- regarding Ryan's central issue, the blocks themselves.
  3. Philippe Beaudette 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - Although I had some contact with User:Betacommand on the Administrator's Noticeboard about this incident, it was not in fact an attempt to resolve the dispute, though it probably should have been, in retrospect. I'm not a totally un-involved party, which is why I chose to sign this section, rather than below.
  4. Uyuyuy, that's frightening. If this sort of thing continues, ArbCom and desysopping may be in the near future... Grandmasterka 05:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Obviously bad blocksKla'quot 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. I admit that I have been involved in a dispute with this user over an unrelated matter, but his behavior & attitude in that case is identical to this one. His efforts to stop spam deserve to be applauded; but I find his failure to learn from, apologize for, or even acknowledge his mistakes to Wikipedians he apparently does not know troubling. -- llywrch 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view by User:Aecis

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I would like to begin my summary by making one thing clear: Betacommand is a very valuable administrator and editor, who has contributed a lot to this project. His relentless blocking of inappropriate usernames has been very useful to the work of other admins and editors, and can only be applauded. Over ninety percent of these blocks are uncontested and uncontestable: those usernames are clearly inappropriate, and Betacommand was very right in blocking them. However, over the past week and a half, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names has been flooded with contested username blocks by Betacommand, almost all of which were overruled. One erroneous block can be an error, two as well, but this is just too much. This needs to be addressed. The suggestion has been made that Betacommand was using some kind of bot or script to block usernames based on patterns. This is plausible, since e.g. Chrisgodwin (talk · contribs) seems to have been blocked for the use of the word god in the name. Betacommand was blocked for the use of an unauthorized bot on November 28, 2006. The possibility that he has done this again needs to be addressed as well.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. AecisBrievenbus 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fredrick day 22:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Haemo 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Psychonaut 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update to outside view by User:Aecis

In my outside view, I wrote:

The suggestion has been made that Betacommand was using some kind of bot or script to block usernames based on patterns. This is plausible, since e.g. Chrisgodwin (talk · contribs) seems to have been blocked for the use of the word god in the name. Betacommand was blocked for the use of an unauthorized bot on November 28, 2006. The possibility that he has done this again needs to be addressed as well.

I believe that it has been established that Betacommand has used a script to report suspicious usernames, and that he has subsequently manually blocked those reported usernames that he deemed inappropriate. I believe that this is permitted under Wikipedia:Scripts. I feel that this particular issue has been addressed and resolved. AecisBrievenbus 11:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Newyorkbrad

A very legitimate concern has been raised here but use of the RfC procedure seems premature. Suggestions regarding Betacommand's procedure for making username blocks have been raised on his talkpage as recently as today and he has not yet had a chance to respond to them. I suggest that this RfC be withdrawn or held in abeyance for a few days to see if the matter can be resolved via ordinary talkpage discussion. I would also urge that Betacommand make only obvious username blocks during that time. Newyorkbrad 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously this dates to the earlier stage of the RfC. I'm sorry that the earlier discussion didn't resolve the issues and hope that this second round can do so. Newyorkbrad 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by BirgitteSB

I have a couple of issues with Betacommand's actions. 1) His consistant use of vague (Please read our username policy and choose another name) log entries and the equally vague {{usernameblocked}} on the user's talk pages. 2) Although he has answered some of the issues brought to his attention; it does not appear that he has made resolving this dispute any kind of priority.

There are two very simple things he could do which I believe would go a long way here. 1) He has this great page which lists suspicious usernames. If he could simply incoporate that information into {{usernameblocked}} or the block log, one of the biggest objections to his methods would be resolved. 2) Filling out a response to this RfC would be another acknowledgement that he intends to resolve this dispute. Since the dispute has been certified I feel he obligated to at least do that. My best case scenario would be that his response would explain the cost benifit analysis to his method of blocking usernames and he would suggest an appropriate method for either handling borderline cases before a block or reviewing them afterwards.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --BirgitteSB 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by user:Chrislk02

My major concern with Betacommands actions were how he was choosing names to block and how he was blocking them. There are many instances in Betacommands block log where he will block 10+ editors per minute, all with the same edit summary. He may be using a script but i find it really hard to review each case and make sure a block is appropriate before issuing a block when there is less than 6 seconds between each block. is a recent example at 14:43. Looking through the bloclk log there are many many more instances of username blocks that are not obvious, however handed out in rapid fire. As well, after a recent perusing of the block log, WP:RFCN at the time of this post has several names block by beta which have no apparent policy violation. The previous hubub of his actions have not been addressed and are being continues.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

This RFC hasn't been edited in well over a week, and has since been superceded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. I suggest closing this RFC. AecisBrievenbus 10:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.