Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

*If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

Moulton (un)ban

Discussion on a potential unban of moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Moulton. Ryan Postlethwaite

Proposed community ban of Betacommand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Given the comments here, the community has decided to place Betacommand under an editing restriction (the sam korn solution). He is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account. He is also placed on a civility parole, and any edited seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of the restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, I am proposing a community ban of Betacommand (talk · contribs) and all known aliases/sockpuppets, for a period of three months. If enacted, and per our banning policy, if he tries to evade the ban the block timer will be reset and his ban will start anew. Please see my statement there for my reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Based on the positive evidence of abusive sock puppetry, continued abuse of bot privileges, harassment of blocking administrators as detailed in my statement, continued incivility and continued failure to recognize and correct his behavior, I support the proposed ban. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, clearly exhausted community patience. I'd go for indefinite ban, but that may be considered too harsh by others. Seriously one of the rudest editors I've ever encountered on here. I cannot understand why this hasn't happened long ago. Al Tally (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• slow down someone will surely unblock, and that will be the end of the ban. I'd love to see something happen here, but only more moderate action will have general support.DGG (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose this action but support escalating sanctions under individual admin discretion. Ryan P already had this ball rolling, then the universe exploded. Beta needs a series of steps applied by the entire community to realize the consequences of unmodified behaviour. Franamax (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, did you miss Betacommand 2? Specifically, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed, where he was already told to remain civil, and violated that, and was told to only operate his bot for approved tasks, and violated that as well? The balls been rolling for a couple of months, but nobody will pull the trigger. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually I haven't missed a heartbeat, Ryan made an unequivocal notice, that looked like a good line in the sand to work from. I'm not unaware of previous history ;) Franamax (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You're saying the ArbCom remedy wasn't a line in the sand? If we keep up with giving out warnings without taking any action, we might as well change the Wikipedia:Blocking policy to the Wikipedia:Warning policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah it was, but there was some beach volleyball being played at the same time. ArbCom draws lots of stuff in the sand, some of it sticks, some of it melts. RyanP was poised on action, the Arb decision was there to back him up, the patent evidence was there - now we're getting on to several MB more server space without resolution, and many are focussed on the sock allegation and NFCC, which are far from the point. However, events are lately pointing toward a resolution, which is encouraging. "Mene mene", right? :) Franamax (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • This definitely isn't about the sock issue (and definitely not NFCC, that's sooooo two months ago), it's about the overall effect his actions have had, and his totally unapologetic attitude (in fact I can't think of a time during this whole situation where he's apologized for his behavior, only that he's tried to skew discussion towards unblocking his bot, his alt and returning to a mostly business-as-usual status). "Mene mene" indeed. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks like the only thing ArbCom has done in the sand was to piss its name in Chinese characters: very impressive at first glance, but in the long run useless. ArbCom instructions are useless when ignoring them goes unpunished. Betacommand has ignored just about everything he could possible ignore. Bullzeye's description of Betacommand is the best I've ever come across: "a nuclear powered icebreaker with the throttle stuck on Flank and the Captain asleep in his cabin with his iPod on and a GO AWAY sign on the door." Aecis^Brievenbus 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• This proposal, along with the rest of this recent Betacommand drama, strikes me as an extreme case of overreaction. I too was taken aback by the sudden revelations everywhere that BC was sockpuppeting, since malicious sockpuppetry by anyone is completely inexcusable - but then I read into it for myself and found that his "puppetry" was limited to a single alternate account that had only crossed paths with his main one once? Please, let's just calm down and let this small incident pass. krimpet✽ 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Betacommand is blatantly violating the ArbCom remedies from Betacommand 2, and you believe this is an "overreaction"? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Would support individual escalating blocks for continued incivility, but this proposal is far too draconian for my taste. Incivility needs to be stopped, but this sort of response is out of proportion to the offense at hand. I would support sanctions, just not this sanction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Ugh...More overreaction. Looking at it, I guess I am not surprised. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, clearly overreaction, the community was expecting far too much by thinking he would abide by the Betacommand 2 remedies. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question A few days ago I proposed one week, and some people thought it absurdly short and others thought it absurdly long. I propose it again as a basis for discussion. DGG (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• It was noted above (or on what has forked onto a separate page) that BC has communication difficulties. He tends to do the more drama-prone jobs around here, compounding any communication difficulties which may exist. I'd suggest that none of the commentators here would be able to comport themselves any better than BC has done, if they were to be placed under the same workload as him. We shouldn't be aiming to get rid of Beta, but more to provide him with more support. Much as we appear loath to refer to ourselves as such, we are a community and we need to care of one another, indeed more than we do already. We don't kick people out of the fold for being imperfect. Martinp23 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  This, by the way, is complete nonsense. If someone were somehow forcing him to work in this area, it might be valid, but he chose this work. If he knows he can't handle drama well, it's his responsibility to find areas that he can competently work in. His failure to do so only indicates that the problem is indeed him. Friday (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Sam Korn solution

I strongly disagree with this action. As in strongly. While I won't call it precipitous (for fear of causing death through hilarity among certain members of the community), I will call it unnecessary. I totally agree without the slightest hesitation that concrete remedies are necessary. I would imagine them to function along the lines of these:

• Betacommand is not permitted to run bots

  Running bots should be a position of trust. It is plain that Betacommand does not have that trust. Criticism of his bot work has frequently unheeded and met with incivility. This is not good enough. Betacommand has no right to run bots. Any unauthorised bot activity should be met with blocking. I would suggest a minimum of a week.

• Betacommand is placed upon civility parole

  Betacommand's response to criticism has been totally unacceptable and must change. Any incivility should be met with an appropriate block. I would suggest that a month should be the outside; I do not expect anything less than three days to be the minimum. Unblocking should only be done with great care: I would be horrified if people continued to think that Betacommand can get away with incivility after the events of the last few days.

I don't see the point of a restriction on the use of alternate accounts. If they are abusive, that is already covered. Abuse would include attempting to evade the restrictions of this kind of decision. If they are not abusive, and Betacommand manages to get to a point where he has an account that is not identified with him and behaves acceptably, all the more power to him.

I feel this kind of set of provisions would be more useful than the considerably blunt instrument of a ban. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on his defiance of the BAG ruling related to the nature of his bot's messages, his continued abuse of bot privileges on multiple accounts, and continued incivility, this is also an acceptable sanction. MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrap anything else I've said - Sam proposes an unacceptable solution, but it's better than all the alternatives. Churchill would approve. Franamax (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. DGG (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Support It seems like there's a new thread about BC's behaviour, civility, unauthorized bots, and now sock puppets? His supporters continually say he's being provoked..but that's the problem. If he could control his temper we wouldn't be here. An angry response to a stupid comment is never acceptable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn's version. Escalating and calculated sanctions are what are needed here, not a 3-month ban... Sam's sanctions (no bots, civility parole) is perfectly reasonable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• We'll never agree on a complete ban. Forbidding Betacommand to run bots may be acceptable for a week, but a lot of people think that some tasks of BCB are very useful. I propose this as a longer-term alternative :
  • Betacommand is forbidden from bot tasks on any account except Betacommandbot.
  • All the tasks of Betacommandbot must be BAG-approved.
  • Betacommand is on civility restriction.

For, say, three months, then see how it works and discuss again. Cenarium (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support Sam Korn's proposal, but we should find an agreement on the duration. Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am reminded of a conversation I had with Betacommand, in which he indicated he had a special relationship with the WMF and/or developers. He indicated that this special relationship permitted him to be granted SUL accounts for him and his bot, among other undescribed privileges, despite not having an admin flag on any WMF wikis. I therefore contemplate if there is an existing WP:OFFICE or m:Developers ruling that would prevent the community from stopping Betacommand's operation of his bot. If an authorized individual could respond to this comment, indicating whether or not the community has the authority to impose such sanctions, it would help clear up this situation. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as being a bit too extreme here. However, Support Sam Korn's proposal - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment with regard to BCB's useful tasks: it is incumbent on the community to identify the BCB tasks with attention to mission-critical and other tasks and effectively "de-task" BCB with preferably open-sourced alternatives. This would at least defuse the argument over how important the bot is. Franamax (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Carnildo, his tasks are not significant or important, and even if they were, I disagree that his contributions are somehow relevant in the clear violation of policy. Even Betacommand says his bot won't be performing any tasks for the next thirty days, so a bot restriction wouldn't do much. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with the botops being un-needed, if some relevant authority would confirm that, so much the better. If indeed all BCB tasks are redundant, then BCB should under the circumstances be permanently blocked. If BC wishes to resume botops (which is not evil, a lot of people/projects come to him for help), then there should be some clear parameters, such as defined tasks amd separate bot names for clearly separate tasks, rather than the loosey-goosey "my code is too complex for you to understand" status-(no longer)-quo. But let's quantify where exactly BC/BCB is too valuable to block and eliminate those roadblocks. Then we can address the actions of this editor of themselves. Franamax (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The "civility parole" part of Sam Korn's proposal is reminding me of Roman legal history where the most unobeyed laws are the most restated. Besides normal wikipedia civility rules, he's already been placed under further civility restrictions by ArbCom. Unless I am misreading the date, this was only last month. Recommend restating to "Betacommand may actually have to adhere to his civility parole and some related wikipedia policies". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support with fire - I support the community ban. Enough is enough. Not only was it proven he violated 3RR with his sockpuppet, but the fact that he has virtually ignored the issue is repulsive. Thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread involving BC also amounts to disruption of the project. I for one am tired of the "Defend Betacommand At All Costs Cabal" and it must end now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, a 3 month ban is an overreaction. Sam Korn's idea works for me. naerii - talk 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes us think he'll change this time? He's been to arbcom twice and it's had little if any affect. If Sam's proposal is adopted, it has to be his absolute last chance; if that doesn't work, I won't hesitate to support a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Hesperian 00:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• While I believe Beta's work is quite irreplaceable, a line needs drawing. I'm in favour of Sam's proposal; Beta currently doesn't have the community's trust to run a bot. However, I think, he demonstrates that he can be trusted after three months, I don't see why not to give him back his bot privileges. The biggest issue here is the incivility; if you treat others with respect, they'll treat you the same. And if they don't but you do, they'll get blocked for disruption/incivility/harassment. Maxim_(talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. Enough is enough. ➪HiDrNick! 01:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Nothing will happen here. BC has deserved a ban for a long time. But even if the community coalesces around a long block, or an outright ban, one of his bodyguards will overturn it unilaterally. It always happens. Why should this time be any different? Bellwether ^B_C 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you always have to assume an evil cabalist will always do something you won't like? Evaluate the situation without flamethrowing towards someone who supports Beta. Frankly, your communications aren't exactly better than his. Maxim_(talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support your assertion that my communications are no better than BC's or retract it. It's ludicrous on its face. There's no need to "assume" anything. It's evident that BC has bodyguards that ride to his rescue every time he faces any sanction for his actions. Bellwether ^B_C 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• You just proved my point. You're making unfounded accusations again... Seriously, why can't you be nice to Beta for a change? Trust me, he'll be nice too. Maxim_(talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I would support a bot ban for a year. It's not a basic human right be allowed use of a bot. Allow him to only use his main account. And have him on civility probation, although I don't think that will stick... --Pesco (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely positively hell no to the community ban. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version. I'd like to note, however, that the vast majority of the previous complaints about Betacommand have been either people unhapppy with our image deletion policies (which is not Betacommand's fault), people unhappy with the way the bot works, or people unhappy at Betacommand's incivility. Has anyone in the BC lynch mob forming here had any issues with incivility from the now-blocked alternate account? BC is stuck in an awkward position, only part of which is of his own doing. He cannot turn over a new leaf (because he'll be blocked if he uses a sock) and he can't escape the past because of a group of users who will not let go of the past. Horologium (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I just want to note that Betacommand has already stated that he will not use BetacommandBot for a month, except for one specific, uncontroversial task. See that statement here. I've spoken to BC about this and he said he does indeed have a list of tasks that he will hold off on, for this thirty day period. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A ban of a user who has contributed much in the past seems a bit cruel and draconian. --Sharkface^T/_C 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the value of an editors contributions allows him to violate personal attack and sockpuppet policies (amongst others)? That's a slippery slope that nobody should want to go down, but I keep seeing that attitude in discussions about Betacommand and his behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: Blah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose full ban, support Sam Korn's version. It's important for us to remember that blocks and bans should be preventative, rather than punitive--a major point brought up during the initial blocking was that Betacommand has a number of high-speed editing tools at his disposal. By banning the use of these tools for a reasonable amount of time, we ensure that the community has sufficient time to discuss their further use. While I personally have no reason to think that Betacommand is anything but sincere in his offer to refrain from bot editing, the fact that a full-on ban is being seriously discussed tells me that we need something a little more formal in nature. --jonny-mt 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version of it. Something has to be done. Enigma ^message 01:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the burning with fire of any plan which would prohibit a user who participates only in bot work from operating bots, and then masquerade itself as a less harsh alternative than an all out ban. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you also support encouraging said user to make substantive article-space contributions on his own initiative, in areas of his own interest, by manual means? If so, I'll help as best I can. The sole focus of anyone on Wikipedia shouldn't be just to make the computers run faster. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose :| CWii is not pleased. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll support graduated remedys here. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He technically can't be banned now, so let's just concentrate on Sam Korn's remedy. Wizardman 02:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - overreaction Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This goes on and on and on. Betacommand hasn't shown any self discipline and inspite of his contributions he needs to understand that, like everyone else, he has to respect the rules and other users. Instead he has a long track record of repeatedly breaking the rules and abusing others as he sees fit. That his work has made him a target is no excuse - he should have expected that going in and found more appropriate means to repsond. It seems like nothing applies to this guy and his bot work is a perpetual get of jail free card. Otherwise, someone might just want to get down to it and start work on WP:ßcommand immunity and just lay down some policy that makes it plain that he can do whatever he wants, to whoever he wants, however he wants to do it without fear of sanction or all kinds of wasted discussion. His behaviour is consistently appalling. It is fundamental that the folks who enforce the rules have to follow the rules themselves or face the consequences. Wiggy! (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I could have sworn we deleted CSN so that we could have discussions here and not do votes for banning. Silly me. I oppose the ban. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Sam Korn's remedy? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's remedy Community banning Betacommand is an overreaction. There are specific problems with Betacommand's behaviour that can be addressed with the proposed remedy and I'm pretty damn sure there is an admin willing to unblock anytime so community banning won't work. If you want him banned you'll need to convince ArbCom to do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's remedy. A complete ban would just polarize things more, as Betacommand's defenders would go to even greater lengths to find him a way out, but Sam's remedy is reasonable, appropriate to the situation, and has a chance of resolving the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Counting here with my trusty hacksaw, support = 3; oppose = 6; comment/indeterminate = 6; Sam Korn = 16. No consensus maybe, but a pretty clear preference. All figures +/- 4, 95% of the time. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) If anyone disputes my count, please comment and do not change my signed statement, thanks, or just do your own count, thanks. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Absolutely not. We've already been over this, and BC hasn't even remotely violated WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently you missed the proof? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• At best you have proof that BC was edit warring and breaking the 3RR, but the use of the other account is obviously a mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Betacommand says it was a mistake. The things that Betacommand says to avoid scrutiny are not always true. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• (EC with allstar, response to ned scott)I'm not sure this is about a single incident, but rather a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. For the record, I don't believe that there has been any sockpuppetry here at all, but the pattern of incivility needs to be addressed and remediated... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to addressing those concerns, but the proposals in this thread are based on the SOCK accusations. That is what I am opposing. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• So, because one thing he did wasn't bad enough for you, he should be forgiven for all the others? His violating 3RR with a hidden sock doesn't bother me as much as his violating his ArbCom restrictions with a run of thousands of unapproved, disruptive bot edits on his own account, or any of the frequent uncivil and disruptive edits he has made in the past year. I'd say it's pretty clear that Sam's remedy is mostly about his misuse of bots, not his sockpuppeteering. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing Sam's remedy. I take no comment (for the time being) on how to handle the bot issues and the civility. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns Ned, but please look at MB's RFArb subpage where he clearly documents that BC had his rollback revoked on one account and then proceeded to deceive the RFR admins into granting it for his other sock. If that isn't abusive sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, WTF? Locke Cole had conflicts with BC in the past, he shouldn't be the one who propses the ban. Sam Korn's propsal makes some sense, but was made at the wrong time, because many people seem to support is as an alternative of outright banning, not because they really feel like that. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • When I say I support Sam Korn's remedy, I mean I support Sam Korn's remedy. I imagine this is is the case for the others as well. Anyone who supports Sam's remedy in preference to a ban but would actually prefer no sanction at all is free to say so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

    Such effect doesn't need to be conscious, in fact, we may see an example of Good cop/Bad cop effect. (I don't mean that Sam and Locke are acting together, but a softer proposal as alternative of a harsher one will always make such psychological effect, and I feel that even Sam's proposal is too much, although something certainly needs to be done). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well nobody else seems to be willing to step up to the plate and propose something with teeth. As you can see at the subpage discussion there was consensus that something should be done, though unfortunately it seems I overestimated the support for something that might actually get his attention. May I remind everyone that he's been grossly incivil (long after ArbCom "instructed" him to be civil), that he's abused a sockpuppet to evade 3RR (now you can take that two ways: 1) it was an accident, in which case he shouldn't have gone on to revert a fourth time and keep his alt a secret, or 2) it was malicious, in which case the reaction we should have should be obvious, but in either case, his use of that alt account was very inappropriate, and his attitude since then (unapologetic, wishing to brush it all under the rug seemingly) should not be tolerated or encouraged. Anyways, yeah, I'm involved, but something needs to be done with clear instructions on the results if he fails to abide by whatever is chosen (not vague references to "escalations", spell it out). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: We shall have no conspiring with the Forces of Darkness.--Hu12 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - there were sanctions proposed in the original thread that were far more appropriate as are those that Sam proposed above. Mr.Z-man 05:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. He's been given far too many chances already. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's version, but oppose a complete community ban. The second would be an overreaction. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support either version. This has dragged on far too long. Leithp 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ok, not going to bold my stuff, cuz votin is evil and all that, but.. WTF? There's a lot of folks who believe that a 1 week block was more then necessary, considering it wasn't actually sockpuppeting, but one mistaken edit.... and now we're going for a "community" ban, or other significant restrictions, with no further mistakes by BC? Are we going Argumentum Ad Nauseum here? Seriously? SirFozzie (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the 3-month proposal due to repeated gross incivility, marginal sockpuppetry, disruption and abuse of bots. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• He did not violate WP:SOCK "marginally", or at all. I have no comment on the other rationales you've presented. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't explain that well - I mean, given that Beta was already "in a hole", on ANI every other pico-second (a splendid phrase I borrowed from White Cat!) and on an ArbCom civility ruling that was clearly being broken, running a separate account without at least notifying ArbCom, privately, was a dumb idea, really. Beta must have known that if/when he made a mistake such as he did, it would be looked down on pretty badly. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• He did violate WP:SOCK, he used an undisclosed alternate account to evade violating WP:3RR. This is a violation of WP:SOCK. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn's version, or at the very least a "bot parole": any rapid editing except that which has been explicitly approved by the Bot Approvals Group is grounds for blocking. He's had far too long a history of unapproved and disruptive bot-like editing. --Carnildo (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Sam Korn option. Betacommand has been given numerous "don't do it again"s for more than a year, and has systematically disregarded any criticism. His bots are now giving no real benefit to the project, only problems (messing up articles, adding large numbers of edits which then need to be reverted), and we have plenty of bot coders who actually can handle people and follow the rules. Betacommand therefore should not run any bots ever again. That said, I am concerned that this community decision will just end up amounting to nothing. His unapproved DEFAULTSORT bot violated an arbcom ruling only two months old, so how is he going to react to any conditions set forth by mere editors, whom he considers to be trolls and drama queens? Also, given past events, I see it as highly likely that any blocks instituted for violating the conditions will be summarily undone within hours. But I am willing to give it a try. Is he back? (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose (god I am so tired of these two), I disagree with the findings of facts above. I have no opinion on Sam's proposal (I have mixed feelings about it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking Betacommand. Support banning him from operating bots, either on other accounts (ie, BC2 and BCBot need to be blocked) or on his main account. Neıl 龱 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but only because it's never gonna happen; thus, support the Korn Plan. However, sad to say, Sam's proposal can be translated at its core into "The community will now tell Betacommand that we really, really, REALLY mean it this time, and we're NOT kidding. Don't MAKE us turn this Wikipedia around...." We'll find ourselves heading back here soon, I'm afraid, wagging our multiple megabytes of discussion behind us...Gladys J Cortez 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't think that's true. As far as I'm concerned, my suggestions would mean that Betacommand would not be running bots at all in the foreseeable future. Not just "only uncontroversial bots" -- no bots, no bot flags, no running bots on the main account. That is one of the major problems with Betacommand's editing. As to the incivility point -- the existing remedies have no teeth. This proposal has teeth and I for one would be outraged if people continued undoing blocks of Betacommand without very good reason. I don't see why the options have to be go ahead and do what you like and extreme ban with a kick as you go through the door. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify my concern (and please excuse my snark of last night--no more editing after bedtime for me!): Beta has been told--in a freaking ArbCom decision, for Pete's sake, which (even if the findings and remedies haven't any teeth, like in this case) generally amounts to AT LEAST a wake-up call for the individual on the receiving end to alter his/her behavior immediately--to only run bots acceptably; to act civilly, to do A, not to do B. If THAT hasn't stopped him, I question what will--especially since he seems to hold sway over the BAG.. Sam, I think your plan is by far the best-constructed option made available to the community, but I just don't trust that Beta won't find a loophole somehow. Gladys J Cortez 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
      • Eternal optimism is good for the soul ;-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the Korn plan - no involvement with bots - either running them or as part of BAG. Viridae^Talk 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Betacommand has himself already 'banned' his bot for any tasks except two uncontroversial, that is enough. I am again stating, I believe he is helpful (at least in the way I have always communicated with him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Do it SKorn's way. An outright ban is just not appropriate here... I think BC's intentions are good, but his communication difficulties often make this hard to see. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• oppose even thouigh we love drama, this has gone way to far. _→AzaToth 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• This needs to be an arbcom action. Lynchmobs of whoever shows up are not how we determine whether or not someone may edit. I think the time has come that despite his outstanding work with non-free images, Betacommand is too much of a liability. But a neutral arbitration committee needs to make that decision. --B (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. No bloody way! Betacommand has done far more good than harm. He is no longer on the front line of the fair use management, and is going to stay away from BAG and bot policy. Any ban would be because of past issues. Yes, the community really means it this time; but we do not need to demand a pound of flesh to prove we mean it. If in a month he has kept breaking community expectations, it can be sent to arbcom for review. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, but how many times do we have to keep saying "if in a month"? I've ran out of "if in a month"s long ago and have had to take out a mortgage on new ones - and the economy has gone to hell so all these new "in in a month"s are losing value every day that passes. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll read through everything tomorrow and get all my facts up to date but for the moment Oppose --Chris 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The total bot ban in Sam Korn's version. I don't know that the civility patrol will actually accomplish anything, but it might in theory help. I'd prefer not to go to a total ban, but I would prefer a total ban over allowing Betacommand to continue running bots as he has been doing. GRBerry 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of ban, or bot restriction (which in Betacommand's case amounts to the same thing). I think the community's treatment of him is pretty shabby considering the invaluable work he has done for the project in the past. Protestations aside, I don't think this conversation would be taking place if Betacommand hadn't stepped up to do the Foundation's dirty work in regards to image tagging, and he's become the scapegoat for everyone who disagreed with either the policies or the methods. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• A big troutslap to those who continue to defend BC's childish and disruptive nonsense. If you don't want to be involved in solving this problem, so be it, but get out of the way of those who are willing to try. He's had myriad chances- the only thing we know for sure is that he's unable or unwilling to behave like a reasonable adult. So, our only recourse is to forcably minimize his involvement here. The details of how we do this aren't very important, as long as that's what we're trying to do. Friday (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Sam's specific plan seems reasonable to me, but good luck keeping BC's little fan club from unblocking him. This will amount to a re-vote any time he's blocked.. a really awful solution, but probably better than any of the others than have been thought of, as pointed out above. Friday (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support the Kornplan, though I do have doubts about the willingness of some admins to respect any community-agreed sanction with regard to Betacommand. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support a community ban lasting at least three months. Betacommand has a long history of assumptions of bad faith, newbie-biting, incivility, personal attacks, drama and abuse of automated tools. Contrary to what some claim, Quercus basaseachicensis is indeed an abusive sockpuppet. A week after Betacommand had his rollback privileges revoked due to abuse, he requested and was granted rollback rights on the Quercus basaseachicensis account; he also used both accounts to edit war on a policy page and violated 3RR. Lesser measures, such as those proposed by Sam Korn, will not work. Betacommand continues to be incivil and abuse tools despite the recent arbitration case concerning his conduct and almost all blocks of him or his bot are quickly reversed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support KoЯn. Would people please stop saying BC is irreplacable! He is just as disposable as the next editor. Also, there are quite a few people who believe his image work is not helpful, but rather lazy disruption because many of the images could be fixed if he {{sofixit}}'d them. His default sorts shit was the final straw for many, and I agree. No more bots, he can edit and do good work like everyone else. Just because a task is tedious doesn't mean that special care shouldn't be used when doing it. It would serve him well to see how much time and effort normal people have to go through. --Dragon695 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn's plan, makes sense. However, oppose a community ban, there is no need for any chickens without their heads here. BetaCommand has taken a lot of flak for his imagebots and the work they do, and everyone here is human. Although, BC has been given lots of chances: I feel that it should be made very clear that this is the last chance that the community will give him. BC's bots can be run by anyone, and he should not feel that doing valuable work gives him immunity. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:44, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. Betacommand has shown repeatedly that he doesn't respect our policies and believes himself above the law. He does nothing that can't be done by someone else-- indeed, a number of such replacements for his bot were produced during the last arbcom case concerning him. No man here is indispensable. The fact that he recieves some flak is no excuse for his ongoing deplorable conduct. I would also support a community ban for some of his vocal supporters-- people who insist there should be exceptions to policy because WP:ILIKEHIM are of questionable value to the project. Jtrainor (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm no fan of BetaCommand or his bot but starting some kind of witch hunt against editors who support him and suggesting they should be banned for expressing an opinion that differs from yours is a draconian idea. Exxolon (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Neutral to Sam Korn's. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn sanctions. Last chance only. Rudget (Help?) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Not convinced yet. Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn Remedy generally, but with a view to unblocking the bot as soon as is practicable or necessary. We do need to experience whether we can live without the bot, but should not deny the appropriate use of the tool even if it were found not to be essential. WP's relationship with the bot and its use may also provide Betacommand with a new perspective regarding his standing in the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn, even though I believe it to be a Big Waste of Time. Any resolution that begins with "Community" anything, whether it end with "ban", or "sanctions", or "solution", or whatever, will fail. As long as he is doing "important work", there will never be consensus to enforce any community solution. --Kbdank71 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sam Korn's proposal appears reasonable to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn Solution - this seems the most surgical option available to us. I don't think anyone who fully understands the history of this situation can argue that Beta can ever really be trusted to run a bot again. His pledge to only do "mundane" tasks is pure Crambe bis cocta, and frankly, I feel a bit insulted by his tone. Since when has "Fine, whatever...I'll stop doing whatever the hell it is you're mad about for awhile, alright? Ya happy now?" been an acceptable rationale for a user staring down a community ban? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum - Just to clarify, the "writing on the wall" reference referred to the silent but inevitable downfall that often awaits a user if they dare to imperiously tip some ancient Wiki-Deity's favorite cow. Based on the number of Reject votes given without any pretense of explanation, I'd say he's about a medium-sized one. Note also that this isn't a statement on his character, merely his status in the community. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sam Korn Solution - This seems reasonable enough to me. A ban may be unnecessary at this stage. The main problem lies with his bot, so we should be looking at remedies to that rather than banning Betacommand himself at this stage. .:Alex:. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sam Korn solution but oppose a community ban. I have had concerns about BC's behaviour for a while, and expressed those at the RfAr and elsewhere, but am convinced he is a good faith user with serious issues rather than a malintentioned user. The socking issue in and of itself was a red herring in my view. Orderinchaos 17:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is clearly no consensus for a community ban. Rather than people continuing to "support" or "oppose" the initial proposal for a community ban, we should be moving forward on the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no support for a community band. There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits. I've already blocked Betacommand's bot account to enact a set of sanctions proposed by Durova that are compatible with the first part of Sam Korn's proposal. A ninety day break from running a bot seems like a reasonable compromise, let us figure a way to fairly review Betacommand's actions during this period and decide how to give him a chance to re-implement bot tasks afterward in an uncontroversial and error-proof way. If successful, we may retain a prolific bot operator and allow ill-will to subside on both sides of the debate. The civility parole may be moot as all editors are expected to maintain a respectful tone in their on-wiki correspondence at the risk of being blocked for profane insults and other childish behavior. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-

the civility part is not moot, as the "general expectation" doe snot seem to have accomplished anything. The point of it is to give a warning to beta that he is not exempt from it, and that a final warning has been given. Yes, it should be unnecessary, but experience seems to show otherwise.DGG (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I only meant to say that the danger of being blocked for gross incivility is a no-brainer. The concept of "civility parole" seems redundant given the circumstances. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think civility parole, at least when used by arbcom, is generally taken to mean "no warning necessary" - that any uninvolved admin can issue a short block if he is uncivil. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say I wasn't clear on the process entailed by civility parole and I agree wholeheartedly with its intent. Thanks to you both for the elaboration :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'd support a community band. It could be called "Anetode and the Beta Blockers". I'll play drums. :) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Durova's suggestions are sensible, though I do not see the need for the account restriction. That seems nothing short of vindictive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sam, if you're going to call my proposal vindictive in public, please give the courtesy of a heads up. It isn't helpful when someone of your standing posts such negative speculation. Fortunately other people haven't picked up on the tone, but in a heated discussion such as this one there's a distinct possibility of it being taken the wrong way. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that really badly. I am certainly not saying that your proposal or the desire to restrict Betacommand's accounts is rooted in vindictiveness -- it was a terrible choice of words and I apologise for it. I was trying to say that it disputed that the accounts have been used abusively (certainly there was no intent to do so) and therefore that the proposal to restrict the accounts seem more rooted in general emotions towards Betacommand than in necessity. I would, however, urge anyone to follow MBisanz's advice below. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Several users objected to account restrictions on similar grounds. Right now the Quercus basaseachicensis and BetacommandBot accounts are blocked, Betacommand and Betacommand2 are not. Since both proposals require an end to bot runs, I don't see any reason to unblock BetacommandBot and the Quercus account is still under some amount of controversy. Surely two accounts (including one for use on public computers and rc patrol applications) are enough. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Sam is leaving open the door that Betacommand, could, if he wanted to, exercise his RTV and start a new account, unconnected to his former activities. My opinion would be that if he did so, he would need to stop using the Betacommand account, per WP:SOCK:

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. By "discontinue", it is suggested that the old account is noted as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.

MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious. The Korn Solution is running at nearly 2:1 support. Let's not squeltch the discussion here prematurely. ➪HiDrNick! 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think much will come out of this discussion. However, I think it is very fair to say that there is wide support for (a) placing BetaCommand on civility parole and (b) giving him less leeway even if that means being harsher with him than with the average user. There was little made of the block he received on April 22nd, just a few days after the end of the arbitration case. Not only was the block lifted inappropriately soon, it was also lifted despite BetaCommand's absolute refusal to admit he'd done anything wrong. Sure, anytime BetaCommand slips up, all the people he's aggravated over the years want him to go down but, hey, that's the hand he's been dealt and it's not like he's got no responsibility in this. So if you're BetaCommand, no alternate account for you, no quick unblock for any civility-related block, no reverts except in cases of blatant vandalism, no putting yourself in conflict situations. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he's aggravated me, & I don't have a strong desre to see him go down. I just want him to act more civil & be more careful with his automated edits. (And if he did so, maybe Carcharoth would find the time to do less stressful things than constantly mediate this ongoing forest fire.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The real problem - competence

As someone wrote above, "There is substantial support for limiting Betacommand's automated edits." Yes. Whether or not there is a community ban, this editor should not be running 'bots. As a programmer, he's just not good enough and nowhere near cautious enough. For his latest botched effort, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry#Current block status. He was trying to undo some damage he did with a previous bot, and tried to use a self-modified version of AWB to do it. His modified version was buggy, but by his own count, he did 144 edits with it without noticing that he was creating bogus edit summaries. His edit history does not show him trying any edits with his new program on a sandbox article or something in his own user space; he just started editing live articles.

It's this lack of caution that's the real problem. This can be trained out of beginning programmers, but this editor has been making mistakes like this for several years now and doesn't seem to be improving. So he should probably be making them somewhere else. The cleanup costs are too high here. --John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not using bad software, so please stop the attacks and insults saying I was. I was looking that the edit summary function of AWB, because I find it annoying that it always appends that to the edit summary. it was not buggy software but rather a typo in the edit summary. I was examining every edit that I made and there where no problems with the edits, just a minor typo in the edit summary. β^_command 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, really. It's "annoying", so you disable it. It couldn't possibly be there for a good reason. Rules are for other people. --Random832 (contribs) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

no where does it say that edit summaries made by the tool requires that using WP:AWB is in the edit summaries. In fact there is an option avaialble for bots that allows that to be turned off. Also AWB is released under a GPL license which allows others to modify the code at their will. so Im not sure what "rules" Im violating. β^{_{command 2}} 14:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably no rules beta, just common sense. Non-sensical edit summaries are not helpfull, especially not 144 of them before you even realise you made a mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I could swear we've had this conversation before... I don't object to Betacommand's work but he has shown no will to let others help him fix his bot or even acknowledge that the bot has problems that one simply wouldn't accept in any mission-critical software. The closest we got to something that looked like co-operation was when he explained how it works but he never accepted our offer to help him fix the bot. That said, those who are making a career out of continuously baiting him and pushing his buttons shouldn't feel too safe either. The way I got him to finally explain what his bot does from a programming point of view was by changing my attitude and be nice to him. Unfortunatey it wasn't enough. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

yes all bots do make mistakes, but I fix all the bugs that are brought to my attention (the few that popped up). I may have not implimented every feature request, but I dont like giving extreamly powerful code to just anyone. β^{_{command 2}} 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you put a lot of work into this and try to help out where no one else would but when you make a mistake like this which really boils down to you not spending enough time hacking the code to figure out why it still left half of the edit summary you wanted to remove it really doesn't look good in the eyes of others. I've tried this out myself Betacommand, it isn't hard to do if you just spend the extra minutes it takes and look what it is doing before you make over 100 edits. You can do this on a test wiki without much hassle. Can you see why this was unwise? EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To the refusal to share, I would state that John Nagle is not just anyone. He's someone with significant programming experience which includes, among other things, major contributions to fundamental TCP/IP functionality which we all take for granted today. I suggest that his criticism of your programming methods is spot on. Furthermore, should he think it helpful, I would suggest that he be given full access to all of your source code in order to evaluate its suitability. If you won't take advice from the community, at least take advice from a genuine expert. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And here we have the great myth: That your code (rather than, say, your ego) is extremely powerful. I could probably code a bot in a day that could make 100 edits per minute or more. Those edits would likely be page blankings, but still. Being able to edit quickly is not something that code has to be "powerful" to do. --Random832 (contribs) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi

A community ban exists when no administrator is willing to unblock. I am willing to undo any indefinite block on Betacommand. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Me also. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is fine, because then the editor is simply indef blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. In this instance, should any admin unblock against consensus I would re-impose the block, block the admin, and open a RfAR to have the admin desysopped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is not that I am threatening to wheel war over a block (and I know you're not either). The point is that a community ban on BC is not possible because there are admins who are willing to unblock - thus nullifying a community-imposed ban. If a ban is wanted, Arbcom will have to impose it. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I got the point - BC cannot be community banned because there are those who would be willing to undo the block (but will not because were there is not yet consensus to do so). I was making clear that, following previous misunderstandings, that non-consensus to ban is not consensus to unblock. In what appears to be developing into a potentially divisive matter I was attempting to draw a clear line over what actions admins might be able to take in pursuit of their position in the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, for the record, that Betacommand's main account is not currently blocked. [1] ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, yes, but we are talking about how the community may act in trying to resolve the problem (after gaining consensus there is in fact a problem) regarding BC. As you say, and last time I checked the wording was such, that a community ban is broken as soon as there is one admin that is willing to unblock. Unlike some other correspondents below, I feel that the above is a timely comment that stops the community enacting such a ban because it is immediately invalidated. The community can therefore decide to enact a block for a length of time or for an indefinite period, which is then open for anyone to try to form a new consensus to get it lifted. This is appropriate. However, if anyone is sufficiently emBOLDened by the non-consensus to enact a ban to attempt to lift any agreed block before a consensus (created over days rather than hours, and a range of opinions rather than the first few agreeing respondents) then there should - and will, if I consider it appropriate - be consequences. If, per the statements by Demon and Redvers, there cannot be a ban then we are left with discussing if and what type of block is considered appropriate, and the result of that discussion is not invalidated by the actions or opinions of just one (or a few) admin(s). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these disruptive admins are indeed a problem. Thank you for identifying yourselves. Do you care to explain why you have a particular user you would unblock regardless of the circumstances? This is quite a surprising and bold statement to make. Friday (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't particularly care why. It's enough for me to know that a couple of admins would promise, before the fact, to actively interfere with admins in the performance of their duties. Would you guys mind resigning your tools in advance rather than wheel warring? Betacommand has been "untouchable" for a good while now, and we've gotten a good look at what this accomplishes. It's not pretty. So, it's time to try something else now. If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either. Friday (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say I "would unblock regardless of the circumstances"? Please point to where I said that. Go on. No? Also "If you don't want to help, don't help, but don't get in the way, either": don't threaten me, Friday - you're not entitled to bulldoze those who do not agree with you out of the way like that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I interpret "I am willing to undo any indefinite block" incorrectly? That's what you were "me too"ing, right? I'm not trying to threaten anyone (with what?!?) but you're not entitled to interfere with those trying to solve an ongoing problem, either. Those who keep unblocking BC are a big part of the problem here. You've had plenty of time to try your "let him off no matter what" approach, and we can all see how well it works. Don't continue to be part of the problem. Friday (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that some people might think your assertions above mean that if you're not part of this lynch mob, you're not welcome to be involved. Telling people who do not agree with you that they are interfering with what you are attempting to do is a travesty of our consensus government and you should be ashamed. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say that Demon did not accurately paraphrase what we have writte on community ban. It sort of suggests that if just 1 admin out of 1,500+ would unblock a candidate, a community ban can never exist. This is not what the policy says. Rather, what I think Demon and Redvers are suggesting, is that there simply is not a consensus to impose a community ban, therefore if an admin imposed one, they would undo it. Correct me if I am wrong. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there some confusion here with a de facto community ban, which exists when no admin is willing to unblock, as opposed to a community ban which is effected by consensus of the community? Franamax (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the application of the "I would unblock" rule in this situation. See my thoughts expressed in a lame graph here: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1953/banningza1.jpg Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A community block is block that imposed per consensus of a majority of the Wikipedia community (I say majority because obviously not every user would participate or possibly be even aware of such a situation). That consensus imposes the block and cannot be lifted without another consensus to lift the block. Yes it works both ways, in case you weren't aware. As said above, just because one or two admins, out of however many hundreds or thousands there are, does not agree to the ban and is willing to unblock a user, that does not mean they can override the block or that it cannot indeed exist. That is not how consensus works. Here's a little bedtime reading that you might be interested in. .:Alex:. 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just all be exactly clear about this. What you demon and presumably Redvers are saying, that no matter the arguments made in discussions like this[2], you would always unblock beta. Why? Just put some thoughts here that illustrate why you would go against the well put and endorsed thoughts of Durova, just so we can adequately assess just how deadlocked the 'community' is with regards Beta and any further violations, because as sure as eggs is eggs, and based on his own actions and statements, change in his attitude or behaviour is not coming, and never will, and good will banked by NFCC tagging is being extended indefinitely. Similarly, any actual actionable incidents are clearly going to continually be treated in isolation despite repeat final warnings, as seen by the above proposal, and even worse, any subsequent blocks thus recieved are actualy watered down, rather than be increased, as happens with other persistent repeat offenders. Even even worse, people have completely ignored beta's apparent solution to all this, to dissapear, and run unapproved bots on user accounts. With comments like this section, I can only see one outcome, an extension of the second arbcom case to force the standards and expectations already stated, to actually be linked to real and descriptive consequences, and to take the issue of how to deal with beta out of the community's hands altogether. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I am an admin and I personally oppose a community ban (and at this stage anyway I seriously doubt one would get off the ground), I would make the general comment that in my view threats or indications of future action are unhelpful. If a process goes to the conclusion and people war it just because it meets their personal definition of "wrong" rather than some objective standard, they're making a rather big statement of how they see their own role with respect to the community, and how they see the community's expressed views. Regrettably I think it's going down the ArbCom road again, although what good it will do I have no idea given that we're still arguing over enforcing the last one. Orderinchaos 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The lack of action was apparently down to no the case not having anything to 'enforce'. I requested clarification here [3], as well as at ANI at the time of a beta civility alert 5 days after the case closed, but there was no response to either. So the next step imo would be to extend case 2 to include enforcement, in light of beta's behaviour since the close of case 2. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There being nothing to enforce provides something of a clue as to why the calls for enforcement aren't working. The "punishment first, verdict later" idea has little merit. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We all already know you think there is nothing to enforce, but this is simply not the case. In fact your repeated one line assertions and silly links in light of pages of contrary views only support the case being made that community action is no longer appropriate for dealing with anything beta does. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But the ArbCom set precedent [4] that a sufficiently large number of edits is more important than adhering to ArbCom restrictions. BetaCommand has a very large number of edits, thus restrictions do not apply to him. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request that betacommand updates his user pages

Right now, beta is prevented from doing anything but a few tasks with betacommandbot for 30 days, so I would request someone requests beta to change the large WP:BITEY boxes on top of his talk pages here User talk:BetacommandBot and here User talk:Betacommand, to actually reflect the current status. Their persistence there, despite beta not having done any image tagging for ages, might explain why some people in the above discussions were not even aware he has stopped doing this.

However, I would also point out, bar the current 30 day restriction, this appears to be by his own choice, and not through any official unapproval, [5]. Therefore, with a number of people proposing to monitor the bot's actions for this 30 day restriction, I would request that beta is also asked to update on the bot's user page User:BetacommandBot with what it is approved for for the 30 day period, and what it will still be approved for after that, i.e. an accurate summary of these pages [6] in regards to which he considers active and likely to be resumed after the 30 days. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; I've always thought that they were a bit rude - but then I entered into dialogue with Beta :-) No, seriously, if they're BITey and inaccurate (worse, misleading), then they ought to come down pronto. That said, the bot info isn't essential to update IMO, that just creates un-necessary confusion.

I'm sure enough people are watching to make sure than no lines are overstepped, but I do SuPpORt with a capital 's', 'p', 'o' and 'r' the removal of the nasty talkpage templates. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

how about you take a look from my point of view, Im still getting questions that happen from edits BCBot made over a year ago. those notices clearly address 98% of all the common questions. Id rather not have to go back to being a broken record when those messages answer the questions. β^{_{command 2}} 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who promised to do image work in his RfA and then was foolish enough to do some, I can plainly and completely vouch for Beta here. The FAQ at the top of his talk page is required, is sensible and is useful. It will cut down vastly the number of complaints he gets - and he will still get them, even if he never touched an image for the rest of his life. Anyone who works with Wikipedia image problems knows that it gets you stupid complaints, ad hominem attacks, death threats, legal threats, email bombs and threats of banning from powerless twerps with nothing better to do. And you get them for the rest of time. And that's after you put up an FAQ. If you don't have one, you might as well pin a $50 bill on your ass and scream "victim here, victim here!". And there are plenty of people trying to do that to him already. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 20:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair point actually; ongoing issues are... erm, ongoing. However, I do have some specific points to make. 1: "Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint" - it is unreasonable to realistically expect newbies who don't understand why they've been templated to read through over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness. 2: "I do not want to see images deleted" - asking for trouble; while I appreciate the point, it's going to cause more trouble than it's worth to say it! Could perhaps those points be actioned? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

the reason that #7 exists is because I always got those "you want all NFCC images deleted" messages, I dont want to see images deleted what I want is for all of our images to be compliant with policy, that means some will be fixed and others will need to be deleted, not delete all. As for the read the archives, at one point it pointed to a specific archive, not sure when/how that changed. as for your over 50 pages of (let's face it) uninteresting dullness the same could be said about our policy pages, people are still required to follow policy, even though its dull and uninteresting. β^_command 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but policy can be easily explained to a user if necessary, by templates or the first paragraph of the relevant policy page. If they require more technical details, then they can read deeper. Expecting users to wade through 50 pages of drivel before posting a simple (and tbh, frequently justified) question to a more experienced user, is totally unreasonable. What's more, no-one ever does. I bet you. Not one single four-day old account will have read each and every one of your talkpage archives - so why continue to have the notice there? —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be too long on my talk page, otherwise I would use the same (or similar) box. Especially since I am working again on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and Wikipedia:Copyright problems. When dealing with copyright, you actually need something like that. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed about two since 1 April, from editors logging after months long absences from wiki, amongst what must be over a 100 non NFCC related queries. I seriously doubt these types of editors are ever assisted by the boxes, but more to the point I think you revel in the continued defence it allows, per Redvers above unsurprisingly, of your right to be incivil because you once chose to image tag, and the confusion in others as to whether you still do it. They always were a violation of BITE and POINT, but now they have no practical use they should be gone. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brief comment and question from a non-relevant user

Hi. I usually find little interest in cases from ANI, however this one got me quite interested, mainly due to the "size" of this debate/boxing match. I also looked up previous cases as well, such as this user's arbitration case for bot abuse. At this point, my question is: if this user was me and did not have all that power (or priviledge as many here like to call it), how long would it take to ban him? In other terms, would I, for example, be able to get away with this? Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would you (or almost anyone else) be able to get away with incessant incivility, disruptive bot edits, sockpuppetry, biting newbies, running a bot on your main account without authorization, and repeating most of the above after an arbcom case told you not to? In a word: no. 166.128.57.118 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That, sadly, is actually one of the clearest summaries I've seen of the problem. Orderinchaos 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've talked it to death...

...what, exactly, have we decided to DO??? Gladys J Cortez 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. What can be blocked is blocked and there are admins willing to unblock the main account so this needs to go back to ArbCom if you want him banned. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I, personally, want him banned; I just wanted to know what was the result of all that sound and fury.Gladys J Cortez 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was being unclear. I mean those advocating a ban. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration request has now been filed so nothing further is going to be achieved here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requiem

By my highly unreliable count, in the above thread 66 editors made an indication of !voting. 48 commented on the ban, 40 on the Sam Korn solution, 20 on both. (I'll leave that discrepancy of two as an exercise for the reader). ;) Of the 48 commenting on the ban, 8 for, 36 against, 4 neutral - a pretty clear indication. Of the 40 commenting on Sam Korn's remedy, 34 for, 1 against, 5 neutral. I submit that the community has made its wishes clear. Sam has well expressed the community sentiment, combine that with Durova's earlier proposal, which also gained approval - there is a way forward which doesn't have to include ArbCom. Franamax (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin review needed at Taser

Could neutral admins familiar with NPOV policy and especially POV Forking review the discussion on the Taser and Taser controversy articles at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism? There are only two or three regular editors of the article, all relatively inexperienced, so if an experienced admin could weigh in it would help us proceed.

Secret Pages

Hihi...wondering if we can start talking about these Secret Pages things. I was wandering around New Pages and saw a strange user subpage, so I followed...this user is building a HUGE (like 20 or 30 pages) sub section of his page as a 'maze' that you wander through to earn a Barnstar. I looked into the history and saw that he'd made a couple of edits and then found someone else's secret page and after that, nearly all of the WP contributions were to his own secret pages. I don't think any of us wants to be the jerk that tells people to stop having fun on WP, but at what point does this help the project? It seems like there are bunches of these things out there...are we getting so big now that we just have to let the kids be kids as long as they aren't disrupting the article side? It's not like the "you have new messages" prank that made people actually think they had WP business to deal with...Any thoughts/ideas? Its frustrating when you see someone putting that much thought into a game you wonder what they could do with an article! Anyway...feel free to tell me to go away if this isn't something that anyone else is worried about. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you've missed the drama, which is a plus for you Legotech! There have been several discussions about this recently. Check MFD, check the ANI archives, the AN archives, then the other DRV.....if you want links I'll get 'em. Generally, it was determined that secret pages are the purest form of evil incarnate. And also ironically, harmless. Very deletable, also very non deletable. Complete wastes of time, and also helpful and fun. A big fat no consensus that ended in a resounding Meh. if I recall...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Found the most pertinent link anyway, here. Happy reading! Warning:According to the Surgeon General, reading that MfD may cause premature death by drinking, random twitches and other seizure-like behavior, and a general sense of hopelessness. Also, may cause birth defects in unborn fetuses, even if you're not pregnant. Just random unborn fetuses. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So was it just coincidence, or an act of the cabal to have Secret close the discussion about Secret pages? In either case, the matching of actor with topic brought a smile to my face. -- llywrch (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me Llywrch....It was a coincidence....it was a coincidence...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are legitimate differences of opinion. The best that can be said for such stuff is that it might be a honeypot (computing) for the kiddies who would otherwise be running amok, touching important things like articles. The worse that can be said for such stuff is that as long as we're content to let children play here, we'll continue to attract children. It'd be best if Wikipedia were seen by these children as boring, rather than as a fun myspace-like place to play. If this userspace nonsense attracts children and keeps them out of the way, it's a bit like a bug zapper- sure, it zaps bugs, but it attracts them too. So, does it do more harm than good? I see no clear answer to that quesiton. Friday (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Here is the relevant ANI thread on the subject. If my brain is working right, it seems that the general idea was to look at these things on a case-by-case basis as there is such a wide variation in their style and content. My opinion: generally pointless but harmless, the particularly egregious/complex/sprawling ones should be deleted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:12, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

Wow, interesting reading! I went back to the one that sparked this interest and the last 100 contributions for this user are JUST the secret pages and his userpage. I don't want to call him out in public tho...and I'm not sure how to approach without him getting really upset about it...maybe someone could drop me an email and I'll point them to the user? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

While WP:PERF may be relevant here, so is WP:NOTMYWEBSPACE, WP:NOT#HOST. I say we delete the maze and block the user if he persists, this isn't his personal playground. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps a friendly note on the user's talk page first, asking why/what they intend to do with them would work. However, given that they are the user's first contributions and that they created 30+ of them... delete the lot and warn the user about MySpace-y behaviour. There are other places for that kind of thing. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:54, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

And also perhaps a reminder about what barnstars are and how giving them out for this tarnishes their value. --bainer (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed, bainer. Barnstars are explicitly not earned, they are received, and unexpectedly at that. Once they are "earned", they've completely lost their value. I've seen the "Original Barnstar" severely misused. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Legotech, any word on the secret pages? Have you managed to contact the user? If you want me to do it [you mentioned above that you weren't sure how to go about it] you can email me the username. Just thought I'd try to sort this out. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:30, May 24, 2008 (UTC)

CoolKid1993

User talk:CoolKid1993 is creating poorly designed logos and inserting them in company articles. There have been complaints about the poorly designed logos in his talk page. Look at his "contribution" to the Whirlpool Corporation article history to give an example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started reverting the changes and are restoring some logos that were deleted. Nakon 23:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all of the logos I created have problems. The only complaints I've had on logos was the Whirlpool logo, TV Guide Channel logo, and the In-N-Out Burger logo. There is no other problems with any other logos, and I will try to be accurate in creating company logos if it means that all of them are going to possibly be removed, and I will not add those that I cannot personally replicate. But blindly removing them, just by removing all the one's I've created, does not solve the problem. Especially since 99% of them are entirely accurate. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaints are because you use fonts and elements which do not match the originals at all (The Morgan Stanley logo for instance is not in the company's color and the font does not look equivalent). There's nothing wrong with the previous logos and they were all appropriately licensed (and are not at risk of being removed as long they have appropriate credits and F-URs), and to change the logo to something which does not resemble the original can be seen as cheapening the company's image; companies even print guidebooks as to appropriate display and typefaces to use for their logos, which although this is a volunteer project, we do follow to respect their copyrights.. What you're doing is tantamount to changing the New York Times masthead font to resemble that of a cheap local newspaper. Please don't fix what's not broken. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through the uploads of CoolKid to see if the problems were just with Whirlpool, TV Guide, In-N-Out, and Morgan Stanley. Here is what I've found. The AP logo, WTWO, Jeep, etc clearly are not copies of the logos in question and cannot be used as such. Dodge, JC Penny, Helio, Yahoo mail, etc have minor issues such as color, letter spacing, size, and shape that are not glaring, but still problematic. And for CoolKid to claim that "Nothing is different in this logo from the actual logo" is simply not true. These recreations are simply not the same thing as the "actual logo" from these companies. Some are better than others, but NONE of them are the "actual logos" in question. I really appreciate that people who have graphic talent want to donate their time to wikipedia. I think a good place to start is Wikipedia:Requested pictures, WP:GL, (and for someone who likes SVG and inkscape) Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images. I do not see any call for (or need) for these logos to be amateurishly converted to SVG. A side note, my personally preference is to avoid SVG when it comes to copyrighted logos due to WP:FUC #3b, but I know that SVGs are not forbidden. My strong advice to CoolKid is to find a way to use his skills to contribute free and/or original content to wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me, Andrew c. I agree that it would be best from now on that I not add any logos whatsoever unless I know I can accurately present the logo better than I have been, which I had not seen as extremely problematic. The thing about SVGs though, as you know, is that anybody can correct it, which is why I do not think that removing the logo warrants any purpose if someone else can fix it... CoolKid1993 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there is absolutely no reason to alter perfectly good images for some perceived benefit of SVGs, particularly when the logos aren't 100% accurate. I also share Andrew c's concern that fair use SVGs should be avoided because of 3b. Ral315 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just this image of the People magazine logo doesn't meet any of the familiar hallmarks of the People logo. It's always been highlighted with a bold band surrounding the letters, and it always appears with white text with a color border, never as one solid amalgamim. Your logo for SC Johnson does not match up to the same font as the SC, and the A family company tagline has become as much of a part of the company's identity as the name itself. We're not trying to put down your work, but it's best to use the company logo properly rationaled rather than creating a copy on your own. It certainly doesn't meet the standards for public domaining them, the images are too large, and as much as I hate to say it, if some corporate lawyer hits an article for a company they represent and see a logo that doesn't look anything like their own, they might file a copyvio lawsuit against WMF. We need well-rationaled logos with a small size and the proper guidelines of display much more than recreations. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A question on a rare situation

I was reading over blocking policy the other day, and I realised there is no accountability within that states whether accounts that have been unblocked (with the intent to be reblocked) but haven't been. For example: say if I was blocked for 48 hours, but then someone unblocked me to reduce it to 24 hours, but never did, do admins have a responsibility to re-add that time to make sure it fulfills the initial sanction? And if so, how long would the admin have to wait before the re-blocked happened? Sorry for this slightly weird question. Rudget (Help?) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if the editor hasn't breached policy while being mistakenly unblocked, the block has had its intended effect; if they have, they can be reblocked for the fresh breach, although personally I'd make it the same length as was intended in the reblock, to be fair. Unless there had been a repeated or egregious (how I hate that word!) breach, in which case I'd have no problem extending it to match the circumstances. --Rodhullandemu 17:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What Rod said. We do need to remind ourselves and each other that blocks are not punishment and are not "sentences" to be served concurrently or consecutively, they are simply one tool we have to protect Wikipedia and its community. There have, of late, been a couple of editors (not admins) who appear regularly here and on ANI, shouting loudly for punishment and particularly for long blocks to teach various nebulous lessons and generally wanting an iron fist on anybody who isn't perfect. This damages Wikipedia rather than protects it. In the above case, if a mistake is made and no block happens but the editor in question had their behaviour corrected anyway, then a block would be inappropriate to the point of ludicrousness. Amending the policy to say this (or a variant, or the opposite) would be instruction creep. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blocks are preventative and not punitive, and I do endorse that a block would be inappropriate if the editor served a reasonable length of time and had recognised and reflected upon their behaviour. So common sense is in order, if this situation was to occur? Rudget (Help?) 17:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across this very situation awhile back, but I figured it was best to simply leave the user unblocked. After all, if the editor continues the same behavior that lead to the first block, they'll earn a second one soon enough. A note on the unblocking admin's talk page, just to make them aware of the slip up, wouldn't be out of order. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense is always in order. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If the user has been unblocked and noone has seen fit to block for new behaviour then chances are they wouldn't have needed to be reblocked. Orderinchaos 22:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "egregious" :D ?? I think it's a great word... but yes, definitely common-sense - if the reason you're looking at their block log is to decide whether to block them again, then something like this would probably swing it, but if they've been good ever since, then let sleeping dogs lie... Happy‑melon 22:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten O'Clock Classics

I'm not sure exactly where this should go, so I'm posting here instead of one of the other pages (WP:OTRS, WP:SPAM, WP:RFPP, etc). If there's a good place for it to go, feel free to move everything.

I first became involved in the Ronen Segev article when it was up for deletion in January last year. Apparently the subject of the article was involved in an incident with Priceline which, while not relative to his notability, showed up when you Googled his name. User:Jimbo Wales was one of the voices to delete, on the basis that there was a small but insistent group who kept trying to insert the Pricelinegate thing into the page (apparently, Segev tried to get mention of the incident purged from t'internet with the services of Reputation Defender, and RD are apparently not a popular bunch).

Anyhoo, despite the AfD's "keep", Jimbo later speedied the page. His edit summary was a bit misleading—"courtesy delete, non-notable but for some tabloid nonsense, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, vandalism magnet, etc" makes it sound like he just over-ruled the AfD for the hell of it—but there was in fact an associated OTRS ticket (#2007011710000088). I had it on my watchlist, so I was able to salvage the notable stuff and move it to Ten O'Clock Classics, the organization Segev founded. I later asked Jimbo if a permanently protected redirect could be created, and that was OK'd both at his talk page and at a procedural DRV, on condition I kept an eye on the TO'C target.

I've done so since, and it's not been a big job; it hadn't been edited in months before today. However, this morning I noticed an anon IP had inserted three external links to the old story.[7] I reverted,[8] but a (slightly different) IP restored it again.[9]

I've reverted a second time and added a little "please stop" notice,[10] but I thought I should post here as a preventative measure as well. I'm not as busy on WP as I used to be, so some extra eyes on the page while I'm not around would be useful, especially if the edits continue, or escalate to the point where a measure of protection is required. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've added it to my watch list and also left a notice on the talk page for the IP editor to not add the link again. Perhaps an innocent mistake by a newbie. If the editor persists I think short term semi-protection should do the trick. Too bad, if I were the gentleman in question I would be rather proud of the incident - taking one for consumer rights! Oh, well. Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SB/Incivility

Forum shopping, see ANI. east.718 at 03:50, May 25, 2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.

If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually do something about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

E.g. "and/or reform of child pornography legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" J*Lambton ^T/_C 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advice

I've just blocked Admin User:Arthur Rubin for 24 hours for edit warring on the Alex Jones (radio) article. He made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Is my block justified or not? I also feel slightly miffed by blocking an admin. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no need to warn him because he's an admin. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arthur's been blocked I see for 24hrs for edit warring, it's nice to see the same standards applied to admins as to us lowly editor peons. So all in all a good block. RMHED (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block. Even though Arthur Rubin was discussing the edits on the article talkpage he should know enough that there should be a max of two reverts before going to dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: That article seems rather contentious. There has been a lot of reverting for at least several months related to whether Mr. Jones is a "conspiracy theorist" or otherwise. Perhaps an RFC with more than the regular editors would be beneficial? Also, this is the third time Mr. Rubin has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule on that article. Something more than a block might be warranted. --Iamunknown 02:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, is this trash still going on? I previously bombarded the lede with about nine citations of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, but apparently that wasn't enough for those of his fans who are disrupting the article. WP:3RR is policy, so is WP:NPOV, and editors who are clearly determined to break the latter should also be blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular this fellow is clearly a WP:TEndentious editor and needs more than a series of wrist-slaps for 3RR. <eleland/talkedits> 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did only have 3 reverts, but I have no objection to the block. Nonetheless, if I could have found an appropriate tag to put on the infobox, I would have done so, rather than reverting. Any ideas. knownfor={{improperly-removed-inline}}? Also, the editor Eleland mentioned has been blocked for 3RR 6 times, at least 3 on that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

I have just left Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) a warning about his ongoing habit of leaving uncivil comments on ANI. Things like lest it get promoted to Featured Article, Spam is spam, no matter how well written, My assumption is that they've got egg on their face, any moron can edit and this are really not needed and appear as gratuitous insults on other editors. I have notified him about this posting. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse warning. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness an editor with strong opinions who employs sarcasm as a tool of expression, ban the bastard toot sweet I say. (Yes, that too was sarcasm). RMHED (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me as someone who simply likes colourful ways of saying things, I'm not seeing any particular incivility here, although they wouldn't necessarily be phrases I'd use, "gratuitious insults" seems a bit strong. Orderinchaos 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but bad warning. Nothing wrong with the first couple of diffs, whilst the latter two were unhelpful but certainly no more than the usual rough and tumble around here. If warnings are to be issued from so little, then by extension there are blocks to be handed out to half a dozen people on this page alone. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that he needed to be blocked or even thought that he should be. On the other hand I am surprised to find that some editors agree with Baseball Bugs that an editor deseves to be called a cunt based on their user name. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that last one was over the top. But the others are not, and there's even some perceptive commentary in there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not endorse vulgar or obscene name calling under any circumstances. I only said that someone who chooses that username is asking for trouble. And I am no pal of Mr. Shankbone, I assure you. He and I have also clashed at one point in the past (though I don't recall when or why, as I try not dwell on those kinds of things). Otherwise, yes, I do get too sarcastic at times. If you think my comments are fundamentally unfair or untrue, you may take appropriate action. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment from the admin who blocked DS for using the specific obscenity referred to; I am both familiar to why Merkinsmum is so named (i.e. who and what "Merkin" is in this instance), and that a merkin is a female genital "wig" which covers the mons pubis - not specifically the labia. Given that BB was not aware that Merkinsmum was female, I considered that BB was not in full possession of all the facts in regard to DS's comment toward MM and made a reasonable comment in view of the knowledge they had. I do not feel that BB was inferring that DS was correct in using the term, only that there was a interpretation of Merkinsmum that could lead to such a term being considered. At the time I thought it best that BB's comment be ignored, so not to cause more drama. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse warning for the TFA related comments. IMO Special:Contributions/Laser brain says it all in that regard. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other editors also complained about the promotional nature of that article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to aid and abet sales. That's "spam" disguised as an article. This is another sore subject that I have called editors on from time to time. Sometimes they get away with it, sometimes they don't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are accusing Laser brain of being a spammer because he wrote a featured article? Come on, you can't seriously think that writing what the sources say is spam. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I missed where we established that Laser brain was acting in bad faith to promote the company. Mr.Z-man 04:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never accused the editor specifically of attaining any personal gain from the article, that's a false spin that some are putting on it. Nonetheless, the article was prominently featured. Others complained about its promotional nature also. Wikipedia needs to decide whether promotional articles are OK or not. At this point, it's unclear. The message is muddied. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I could write a fine, glowing article about a certain insurance company, for example. I don't happen to work for that company, but I think it's a good company, and if I do it well enough, I could theoretically get it to FA status. And it would still be spam even though I gained nothing from it financially. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that LB is acting in bad faith? Mr.Z-man 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

None, nor have I ever accused him of such, despite his attempts to spin it that way. In the self-hypothesis I described above, I would also have been acting in good faith. And it would still be spam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec galore) I have nothing against Elderly (I've bought parts from them for my Stratocaster), but the article is written in a bit too laudatory tone. That's not at all saying that the author wrote it in bad faith, just that it could take a more detached tone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I hate to quote that, but I notice we have boatloads of edit conflicts (process wonking) with people getting angry at someone for issuing a warning (process-wonking) about the nature of someone's posts at ANI (process-wonking). We're several steps removed. (Meanwhile, I've been fighting sockpuppet vandals all night, most of the time of which AIV has been backlogged). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Spider-Man metaphor an updated way of saying "making a mountain out of a molehill"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was already warned by the admin, and it was a fair and justifiable warning in general, even if I don't agree with some of the specific complaints. And you're right, there are many other fish to fry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I just woke up to see this and the only person I agree with 100% is The Evil Spartan. To Raymond Arritt's first comment above, I did tell Baseball Bugs that he made good comments. To Baseball Bugs' first comment, a user should not expect to be insulted based on the fact that they may have chosen the first name of their child or the family surname as part of their uesrname. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica#RFC:Dead link or live link?

Appologies for using this board, but it get's a wide audience. Could we have some more views at the above RfC? It's important we get a wide community input into this so we can put it to bed once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• No need to apologise Ryan, your post hath brought forth comment from me. Love thy enemy say I, not because of any Christian doctrine, but mostly because they really dislike it when you show up their intrinsic bitterness. RMHED (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

history merge backlog

There's a bit of a backlog at Category:History merge for speedy deletion. For the dramatic majority of these you'll just need to move the page indicated in the tag over the tagged page, deleting it temporarily, then restore all deleted revisions. --Rividian (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Working on it, but deleting/restoring many revisions seems to be tasking the servers. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That was really fast. --Rividian (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Resolved

 – Unblock handled by Jpgordon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin delete User:SimsFan/monobook.js. Jimbo has given me a second chance, and I want to break my wikibreak to request unblocking.
If an admin would unblock me, as Jimbo suggested here, it would be great, but otherwise, i'll just go through the normal procedure. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Please don't put 'wait for your wikibreak to end'.

I've blanked the monobook. I think unblocking requires further discussion, considering there are so many sockpuppets. See User:SimpsonsFan08. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking will do as much as deleting, SimsFan. Clear your cache. Request unblocking the proper way, and somebody will deal with it as they see fit. Alex Muller 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it as well, but you need to clear your cache. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought unblock requests were meant to be made from the master sock account which is Simpsons Fan08? (although its user talk page is protected) I think this would need community discussion first though. EJF (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

I have posted an unblock request at User talk:SimpsonsFan08. Can an admin attend to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.91.181 (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EJF that there should be community discussion before an unblock takes place. Jimbo admitted having no idea what the case was about. But as this user has apologised and swears not to do it again, I think there should be some forgiveness. I would support an unblock at this time, for the one account. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As does Jpgordon, who unblocked. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And everyone's happy ;) I can support this if SimpsonsFan08 gives an honest answer to a question I've asked on his talk about another probable sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the unblock made by Jpgordon. I don't think a community discussion was really neccessary. They know they will be watched, any slipups and they are gone forever. Woody (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban - User:MickMacNee regarding User:Betacommand

I'd like to propose a topic ban by MickMacNee (talk · contribs) in regards to actions by Betacommand (talk · contribs). It's apparent that Mick has a real animus toward Betacommand, as demonstrated by comments in the recently-archived massive thread about Betacommand and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count, as well as all of its predecessor threads in various forums. I'm not saying that Mick's concerns are without basis, but his obvious animosity, forum-shopping, and refusal to heed the advice of others is disruptive. Betacommand is under close community scrutiny, and I don't think that Mick's particular close attention on Betacommand's contribs is required. I, and others (including Until 1==2 and AuburnPilot) have tried to discuss this with him (most recently here) but I'm afraid the advice is falling on deaf ears. Would appreciate the community's opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support My patience has been exhausted, as has a lot of peoples I suspect at that MFD. It is clear that Mick is blinded when it comes to Beta. Perhaps a forced withdrawal will help. Woody ([[User talk:Woody|tal16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on MickMacNee towards issues relating to Betacommand. In my past experience with Mick I have noticed 3 things: 1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that.

I think it is in the interest of the community to ask Mick to not deal with Betacommand. Other people who don't have an ax to grind can handle that situation. _{1 != 2} 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - seems to always be around alleging conspiracy. —TreasuryTag—t | c 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not forum shopped. Please expand this claim if you want it to stand. And it is demonstrably clear that that an Mfd of that page was the next logical step (and only valid step), as identified by many other editors who followed the events surrounding that page. As for 1==2, 1) is wrong, please prove, 2) and you would? 3) Again wrong, please prove. Yes, other people are dealing with the larger situation (you will note I had no hand in the initiation or voting on that solution), so please demonstrate what you hope to achieve going forward by this action? (bar plain censorship of legitimate actions such as commenting at an Mfd) MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

proof for 1 and 3(your behavior on this page), and proof for 2. _{1 != 2} 16:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show exactly where "I perceive people who disaree with me as a personal attack". Please show an exact diff where I accuse someone of a personal attack without justification. A link to an entire page is frankly insufficient if you want to make such claims, and shows this issue for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I am tired of arguing with you, I never get anywhere because you don't seem to take anyone else's opinion into account. I will let others decide if my links are enough or not. _{1 != 2} 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. It's really annoying and part of the reason why we're discussing a topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You want the truth then? 1==2 and Kelly can't accept that an Mfd of a page owned by Beta is acceptable, despite numerous independant calls for one, so they come here, because they can't convince me that what happens at an Mfd in user space overrides what happens in wikispace, and they think they don't have to argue their point because my past history with Beta is enough for their views to count by default, because they can't reconcile the fact that the highlighted inconsistencies in their arguments go against the accepted principles of how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we resort to conspiracy and backended attacks when it is clear that the MfD is not going to have any effect? Pretty much nobody agrees with the MfD and it will be closed as Kept. No this is about the way you are presenting yourself, and it goes well beyond just the MfD a quick look at your talk page shows that this is about you going after Beta for anything you can find. _{1 != 2} 17:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As if you even know what the last issue was about (or would even take a side that doesn't support your current one). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack"... I actually did follow the original discussion and I do know what it was about. It was about something unrelated, yet there you were going after beta. _{1 != 2} 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Beta cannot be wrong in two separate issues. Impossible. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the topic ban as proposed above, Alex Muller 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT springs to mind. EJF (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but 21 keep voter in an Mfd does not override the stated wishes of 31 editors in wikispace, whether they were made a day ago, or in this case a few months ago. MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked for more proof, "has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" describes that last post of yours very well. _{1 != 2} 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

God was this response ever ironic... Resolute 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To 1==2, You are incessantly backflipping, one minute you think 21 keep votes is consensus, now you don't. It is obvious that the Mfd is not the place to discuss a previous wikispace arrangement, despite the fact you really want it to because the diversion and subversion suits the current agenda. You haven't got the balls or the integrity to take the issue to the correct venue. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about the MfD not having consensus, it clearly does. "He will never stand down when he is sure he is right"... You are actually re-enacting each of the reasons I supported this topic ban. This is tragic. _{1 != 2} 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• yes, I fully support this proposal. We clearly have issues to sort out with Beta's behaviour but we aren't going to be able to do it in the background of constant harping on about previous events from MickMacNee. I personally feel that this is a sanction that should be used more frequently to take the heat out of other disputes that are fuelled by personal animus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - A definite need for this. asenine ^{say what?} 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've blocked MickMacNee for 24 hours for incivility, provocation and personal attacks. I've, with a note, listed three examples of such in the last 2-3 hours on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Extended to 48 hours for repeating the same behaviour on his talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sceptre ^(talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Just becaue he's sometimes right about Betacommand doesn't mean he's allowed to act the way he does. --Carnildo (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view precisely. —TreasuryTag—t | c 18:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - (ec) There are definite issues regarding BetaCommand's behaviour. However, constantly prodding and poking involved parties and then attacking them when they reply is probably the worst way of going about resolving them. He is complaining about BC's incivility, and then goes around doing the same [and arguably worse] things himself. The words kettle, pot and black spring to mind! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:06, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
• Support - if there's any evidence to support it, a reciprocal ban would be appropriate... however every incident in which the two came to blows that I've experienced has been precipitated by MickMackNee. Happy‑melon 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I sympathize with some of Mack's views, but I think he has gotten so burnt out and frustrated on Beta related topics that he can't effectively contribute to discussion surrounding it. Maybe he is right in how upset he is with the community's actions on these issues, but simply acting upset time and time again over it in a incivil manner isn't helping his cause, only disrupting things. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - MMN is entirely unable to stay civil in matters related to Betacommand. His participation in discussions almost always has the effect of inflaming the dispute and increasing the drama. However, given the combative attitude he often displays, I'm unsure how effective this will be in avoiding more drama and blocks. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this, if anything, I imagine banning Mack on this will result in him just leaving the project, where, outside of a lot of this drama, he does good work. Of course, this is not to say that topic/ban or a block of incivility shouldn't happen if the community demands it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that barring any sudden influx of contrary opinions that it has been decided that MickMackNee is banned from topics related to Betacommand due to past behavior. _{1 != 2} 18:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose MickMacNee has been a much needed balance to the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal". - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"1) He perceives people disagreeing with him as a form of attack, 2) He will never stand down when he is sure he is right and 3) He has his own way of interpreting policy and no amount of consensus to the contrary will change that" would apply at least as well to Betacommand. If MickMacNee has become burnt out because of the ongoing problems with BC, then perhaps those who have done so much to defend BC from criticism should examine their consciences. DuncanHill (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that Betacommand needs attention, I don't think what Mick brings is "balance". _{1 != 2} 19:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The protection of his talk page just looks vindictive, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support unprotecting his talk page and making some kind of transclusion so his comments there can be seen here. Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be completely frank I think that unprotecting his talk page will lead to him saying something that will get him in more trouble, see [11]. Give a guy enough rope... But I don't oppose the unprotection because he may surprise me and act appropriately. _{1 != 2} 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am by no means a member of the "BetaCommand Can Do No Wrong Cabal" (as Allstarecho put it), but MickMackNee's actions are bordering on harassment. It's time we force a separation between these two editors. - auburnpilot talk 20:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The way MMN is making his points has been more than unhelpful, and his argumentative behavior only make it harder for everyone to take seriously the other "BC opponents". -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Especially after the latest 48 hour block. Will also support a reciprocal ban, if needed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 34 comments Mick made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count were excessive and, IMO, badgering. Couple that with the 30+ comments that he made about BC on this page the other day, and it's clear he just can't stop at this point. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. About time too. MMN's hounding of Betacommand, pushing BC beyond human endurance and then shouting loudly when BC snaps has been some of the worst behaviour I've seen on Wikipedia. MMN's trolling and similar behaviour toward anyone who speaks up for BC or takes issue with him (MMN) is also appaling. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This has been a long time coming. naerii - talk 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think this is an appropriate restriction. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• I have no problem with this proposed topic-ban. MickMacNee has gone far beyond the bounds of acceptable decorum and is simply inflaming an already inflammable situation. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Whilst I also get irritated by the number of people who bring up complaints regarding Betacommand and his bots, I am absolutely against the principle of silencing them by topic banning. Topic banning a complainant is not going to encourage anyone else with a legitimate (or even nor so legitimate - but something that can be resolved) issue with BC to use the admin boards as resolution process, and may permit BC to believe that they can continue in the contentious style as they have previously. Betacommand has serious issues regarding his communication skills with both the use of his bots and his reaction to criticism of them. If we wish to reduce the number and variety of complainants in respect of BC I suggest that BC is the party that needs to be actioned. If MickMacNee has violated WP policy/guidelines then pursue that avenue, but lets not sanction the malcontent for simply bringing up the issue. If exasperation and irritation were the basis of considering sanction then Betacommand would not now be editing WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Betacommand has already been sanctioned. --Conti|✉ 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am aware of that. However, my point is that removing the critic is not the way to deal with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If this were a case of somebody "simply bringing up the issue," that would be perfectly fine, but Mick has taken his opposition to Beta to a level that can only be described as stalking and harassment. Mick doesn't just bring up the issue, but badgers Beta and anyone else who disagrees with his (Mick's) stance on the issue. Civil discourse is fantastic; Mick's obsession is not. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support: This has been a long time coming; there are enough issues dealing with Betacommand already; MMN doesn't help things and has a tendency to make things a lot worse. I feel that taking him out of the picture will help the overall situation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This situation needs to deescalate, and Beta has enough critics to keep him sober. I'm not convinced MMN's presence here helps, and I'm quite certain it hinders. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose BC has been out of control forever and if he'd displayed half a lick of sense or self control over the past year the reaction to him wouldn't be so extreme. He's slipped the noose more times than he deserves and there needs to be critics on him and challenging his supporters. I'm looking forward to seeing if sanctions on BC actually stick. Wiggy! (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Mick made several excellent points during the previous discussion and although he could have presented them better, he was more civil than Betacommand. Why do Betacommand supporters single Mick out, while failing to acknowledge Betacommand's misconduct and communication problems? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mild support. MickMacNee's frequent and relentless criticisms of Betacommand often seem to hold back productive discussion. Yes, Betacommand has earned the criticism in many ways, but MickMacNee has the tendency to keep hounding Betacommand about something long after the point has been made. Mick has been quite adept at finding problems, but now we all know about the problems and need to find solutions. That said, it will be a shame if a topic ban is successfully applied to MickMacNee but Betacommand's sanctions fail to stick, just because Betacommand has more friends in high places than MickMacNee. So it is very important that community consensus works both ways. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When the way in which a user expresses his very very good points, and the frequency with which he expresses them, begins to annoy people more than the original problem he was attempting to solve, then the "solution" has become a separate, yet equally vexatious, problem. Mick has been asked repeatedly to slow down, to cool off, to disengage, and to back away from Betacommand--in fact, he's been asked, begged, cajoled, warned, and threatened (and topic-banned once before, IIRC)--and yet he persists in the behaviors the community has requested to end. A topic-ban would allow the Beta conversations to continue with a little less heat and a little more light, and would free Mick up to contribute to the encyclopedia--which is the whole point of this endeavor, after all. I find myself in agreement with Mick more than otherwise, but if he can't moderate his own modes of expression (and regrettably, that seems to be the case) then a topic ban will have to serve the same purpose. Sorry, Mick. Well, I was regretful, until I read this; now all I am is curious, as to why people insist on shooting themselves in the feet. Jeebus. Gladys J Cortez 03:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. User's contributions in regard to this area have become unhelpful to the point of disruption. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support, Mick left us no other choice. Whenever I see him posting here or to ANI, I know it will be about Betacommand or bots in general. He had been disuptive in this topic for the last half year. Several blocks din't help, so another measure needs to be taken. Topic ban is the kind of restriction that allows the user to concentrate on contributing to encyclopedia, instead of harassing Betacommand. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 edit to BetacommandBot page

It's my understanding that User:BetacommandBot is blocked. Is this edit appropriate, then? ~Pesco^{Say it!} 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the end of the world. It is not even the account of a person. Either way. _{1 != 2} 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand2 (talk · contribs) has removed the notice that BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is indef blocked. That seems inappropriate. BetacommandBot remains blocked, as it has been for over a week. Wikipedia operations seem to be going along well without it; other 'bots have taken over the more important functions, and nobody seems to be complaining that essential functions are not being performed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we really need the indef block tagged. A better idea would be to have a short statement directing users to the result of the community discussion and state that the account is no longer permitted to make edits. The indef block tag suggests the user is also blocked, which is not the case here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the bot user page here. Hopefully it's slighty more descriptive than the indef block tag. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. --John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, although it's not a blockable edit, I'd say it's bad form (if anyone uses that phrase anymore). If the information is incorrect, then BC ought to ask one of his friends (or advocates) to correct it to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Otherwise given the abundant emotion around the whole matter, his changing it will only lead to another chapter in the Wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Bart Versieck

Resolved

 – Block reduced to three weeks, but with a final admin warning. Blueboy96 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more input into the recent block of Bart Versieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Canadian Paul (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked him for three months for what I'd consider very minor misconduct. Bart has been altering other users comments in discussion, although they are certainly not changing the meaning of what someone is saying. These are the specific edits he was blocked for. He has been blocked for editing other users comments before, but three months for such minor behavioural issues strikes me as excessive. I'd have no problems with a block of up to a week, but no more than that really. I'd appreciate thoughts because me and Canadian Paul have had a friendly discussion about it, but we just can't come to agreement. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. On one hand, that block log is genormous. On the other hand, three months is simply too excessive. He was blocked for a week before and he kept it up ... I say knock it down to three weeks. Blueboy96 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, three weeks still strikes me as a tad excessive, but I do agree his block log speaks a thousand words here. Three weeks is certainly better than three months. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support three weeks. I don't think it's too excessive when considered against the warnings and block log. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been discussed at ANI before. Definitely a long-standing problem. I'm going to cut the block down myself, but leave a stern warning that if there's a next time for this, the block will be much, much longer. In my view, a community ban won't be out of order if he does this again. Blueboy96 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Three weeks is better than one week, and I could live with it, but I really don't think it's going to do anything. Bart's been blocked half a dozen time on both the English and another Wikipedia (I forget which, I can't find the link anymore, but if I do, I'll let you know) and on this one, at least, makes promise after promise to modify his behavior, but fails to do so. Maybe those particular edits aren't that bad, but changes "comments" to "irony" is certainly not particularly useful, especially not after you've been warned to not edit people's comments numerous times - after all the warnings, you would think the last thing you would want to do is anything that could even be construed as editing other people's talk page comments. I really believe that people not directly involved with his behavior do not have a clear grasp of his entire editing history and his refusal to accept the way Wikipedia runs.

And why has someone reduced the blcook while this discussion is going on? Neither I nor Moondyne got to make a comment here before things were changed. Not, as I mentioned above, that I really want to fight it, but I feel that it was very premmature to take any action before the other side had an opportunity to respond. Cheers, CP 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, if the next one promises to be stronger, with the possibility of an indef, I can support that. Cheers, CP 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia block logs here. John Nevard (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading that correctly, it looks like he's been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia (dating back to 2005) numerous times for the very same problem. 3 weeks may not be enough. - auburnpilot talk 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)