Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I'm taking the liberty of closing this discussion as I don't expect any further good will come from it. But I believe there is at least one emerging consensus here and to every admin reading this, I'd like to remind to abide by the following principles.

  • Don't block an editor with whom you're in a content dispute.
  • Don't unblock an editor whose block is being discussed at ANI (or a similar forum) unless you get a clear mandate to do so.

These principles apply of course in any context, but they're of critical importance in the case of BetaCommand whose conduct has generated so much divisive drama. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review of User:Betacommand

[edit]

per discussion here I have blocked Betacommand indefinitely for edit-warring until he addresses the issues raised in that discussion. As an interested party, I bring this block here for review. Cogent arguments have been advanced for fair-use but have not been addressed. Two admins disagree with his his interpretation of policy, yet he persists in failing to address the arguments, relying solely on opinions which are inapplicable to the issue at hand. His edit summaries have also been borderline uncivil. This is not the way to build an encyclopedia. --Rodhullandemu 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at the merits of the edit war, you've just blocked somebody with whom you are in a content dispute. Never a good idea. - auburnpilot talk 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but you've blocked someone who was trying to uphold policy. Makes Cryptic's block (discussed ad nauseam above) look positively righteous. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good block. Betacommand was obviously trying to uphold policy as he saw it, and AuburnPilot is correct about blocking someone with whom you are in a dispute. Kelly hi! 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, I think it was a bad block - he was enforcing NFCC, exempt from 3RR. IMO, his edits were legit as well - he was removing images that were against policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a user won't discuss his actions, blocking is definitely called for. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. Whatever happened to coming here first? —Kurykh 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So who are you responding to? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to you. I'm not saying that he's allowed to not explain his edits, but this block is unnecessary, and it even violates policy. —Kurykh 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Betacommand couldn't care less about policy (other than smacking down anything he sees as a fair use violation), that's rich. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're entitled to break policy yourself because "he did it too"? This isn't kindergarten. —Kurykh 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What policy am I breaking, other than speaking up against that character's autocratic attitude? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially defending a block made by an involved editor, which is explicitly forbidden by policy. —Kurykh 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone else have to follow policy and Betacommand doesn't? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're going in circles. Refer to my "kindergarten" comment above. And I never said Betacommand doesn't have to follow policy. Stop putting words in my mouth. —Kurykh 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to answer the question about why he is exempt from policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man. Your question makes no sense whatsoever because I never said that, nor have I even implied that. You, however, are defending a blatant policy violation, and that needs explanation. —Kurykh 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And your kindergarten comment doesn't make sense either. The blocking admin says the guy won't talk to him. Betacommand is not god. If he won't discuss issues, he should be stopped, like any other user who stonewalls. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like I have to quote Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes for you, so I will do so:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

It's in plain English; this is what I'm referring to; this is to be followed by all admins. This is why I oppose this block, not because of your mistaken assertion that I believe BC can break policy, but because this block is contrary to policy. If you don't understand this, or choose not to, then I don't know how to further explain why. —Kurykh 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you're complaining about the block. I still want you to explain why Betacommand is exempt from following the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For at least the third time, I never said that; will you stop spewing that straw man argument? You only discredit yourself by doing so. —Kurykh 00:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you specifically said it, I just want to know why Betacommand does not have to answer to anyone. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're asking the wrong person. Ask Betacommand himself. I never said or implied it, so stop asking me. —Kurykh 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What, ask him why he won't talk to us peons? That's a good one. Tell me another one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wish granted; I will tell you another one. Stop asking me to explain what I did not say. —Kurykh 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that you both stop? This isn't doing either the discussion or either of you any good... TalkIslander 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may yet prove that he's not above the law. We'll see who wins the "on track" debate - which, if nothing else, confirms his arrogant attitude. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not when he's enforcing policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, who are you responding to? —Kurykh 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that was misthreading - I was responding to BB. Apologies Kurykh, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except he did, quite clearly. He even pointed out, as Ryan Postlethwaite says, that his actions were exempt from 3RR. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does he get to be exempt? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcing NFCC is an exemption to 3RR (for everybody). I do agree, however, that editors should be expected to stop and discuss things, without further reversions, if their interpretation of policy is questioned. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that guy refuses to answer anyone's questions. By what authority does he get to assume god-like status? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
except he did reply, twice actually. Can you read? 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he responds to admins. To us peons, he basically responds "F.U." And I don't mean "Fair Use". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x4) I'm not endorsing Rodhullandemu's block, but here Betacommand was taking his stance on the NFCC rules, and imposing them regardless of the ongoing discussion on the talk page (in which one editor thought that the images violate NFCC, whereas two didn't think so). Rodhullandemu was involved in the 'warring', so shouldn't have blocked, but neither do I think Betacommand's edits should be considered exempt from 3RR, as the violation is not clear - he's interpreting the images as violations, but they're not necessarily. TalkIslander 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theyre clear violations, in a "List of" type article, therefore they are things that aren't important enough to have their own article, therefore don't justify a nonfree image. QED. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? That's entirely your opinion - nowhere in the policy does it state that something non-notable for it's own article is non-worthy of a non-free picture. The rules can all easily be sumarised in two points: a) if it can be described in words, don't use a non-free picture, b) don't over use non-free pictures. Neither are being done here. Regardless, this shows that discussion is needed, and Betacommand refuses to partake in these discussions. All that aside, who are you? You seem to be very clued-up about all this, yet here you're hiding behind an anon-IP. Why, exactly? TalkIslander 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume BC gets a free pass here. WP:NFC says fair-use can be used, but very judiciously. Alien races in sci-fi shows are explicitly given as an example where fair use images can be used in list articles. Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, some sci-fi editors changed the policy when no-one was looking? Did I miss a meeting? They're not important, they don't get images, get over it. 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And who exactly are you, 86.152.216.116? - auburnpilot talk 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question also. Mighty opinionated for someone whose first entries are just now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, quack. (and FYI, that part of NFC has been up for at least five months. Nice try.) Sceptre (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm me. *waves* I like copyright policy. It's easy to understand. (Well I thought it was until a number of experienced contributors in this thread proved they didnt understand it - Sceptre, go back and read NFC - guideline - and NFCC - policy - again, there's a good boy.) 86.152.216.116 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just how did you happen to come straight to this discussion? Who are you when you're not being anonymous? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being condescending. You know full well NFC is a guideline about application of NFCC. Sceptre (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCC is open to wide interpretation, BC's interpretation is a strict one. Many others interpret it more leniently. Until the NFCC policy is worded in such a way that excludes interpretation, disagreement will be ever thus. RMHED (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointing out that reversions are exempt from WP:3RR does not make them so. Assuming good faith, clearly Betacommand believed that his reversions were within existing policy. However, the [WP:NFCC|policy]] has been criticised as being vague; this does not help editors in deciding whether images should be acceptable in articles. I have set out, on the talk page of the article in question, a detailed argument as to why not only is the policy vague, but also how I think it should be approached, and discussion about the images in question in relation to their validity in the article. My impression, althouth I'm open to correction, is that policy is just that- policy. It is not a monolithic weapon to be used for deletion of images; it's very much more subtle than that, and again, my impression is that Betacommand doesn't see that subtlety, and maybe why he didn't address it despite being given ample opportunity so to do. Furthermore, edit summaries threatening blocking for questioning a policy interpretation that's moot doesn't help. As I've already said, Betaccommand may very well be experienced at applying policy in clear cases; but when that policy is vague enough to be open to interpretation, he is not the arbiter of that policy. And he was not enforcing policy, he was enforcing his interpretation of policy regardless of the detail. --Rodhullandemu 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm, I've used that range and it looks like a couple of other users have as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. It's BT Wholesale broadband. Fat lot of good WHOIS does. Sceptre (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand was reverting to remove Image:HelenMorgendorffer.jpg, an image without a fair use rationale, from List of characters in Daria, so I think his actions probably were exempt from 3RR, especially considering he provided edit summaries to explain his actions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all in agreement here that this was a not so good block. I'm going to go ahead and unblock now. . Just to clarify, this does not mean I don't disagree with any actions of the administration involved or the opinion of any users; I too place a FIRM request for civility and the avoidance of personal attacks going forward. -Pilotguy contact tower 01:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, interesting definition of 'agreement' you've got there. Have you actually read the discussions below this? TalkIslander 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That unblock is just about as bad as the initial block. Awful. - auburnpilot talk 01:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse. There seemed to be a clear consensus that the block itself was justified. The only debate centered on whether the blocking admin should have been the one to levy it. Pilotguy chose to simply ignore the consensus developing here. S. Dean Jameson 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back on track

[edit]

Is there any opposition to Betacommand being unblocked if he agrees to stop reverting as well as stop removing images from list articles? That seems to be the next logical step here, in addition to somebody starting a discussion on the list issue. - auburnpilot talk 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are we realy going to clog up the ArbCom by reporting EVERY adminw ho blocks someone who feel sthat they shouldnt have be blocked?? Smith Jones (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Getting back to the original issue (and the start of the thread), the original problem is a blocking by an involved admin. I'd suggest an immediate unblocking by that admin, and then a continuance of the discussion here at ANI to decide if another blocking is deserved due to other factors. That essentially removes Ryan's problem of blocking an editor they were in a conflict with, and puts the responsibility back on other, uninvolved admins. Dayewalker (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't need to go unblocking/reblocking just for the sake of appearances. If the block is warranted, even if placed by an admin who shouldn't have made the block, it should stand. Admins are not infallible, and I see no case for ArbCom here. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betacommand is also under arbcom restrictions/guidelines to be more open and to discuss his actions with the community. His talk page response to the block and his threat to the blocking admin show his attitude in this area has not changed. The blocking admins reduced from indef (which I agree was way too much) to 31 hours. I support leaving it at 31 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously we're not going to ban Betacommand. --Jenny 07:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal for Betacommand

[edit]

While I've been a bit more supportive of Beta, I think his threat to Rodhull crossed the line - especially since he's on civility parole. Threats tantamount to blackmail, legal or not, should not be tolerated on Wikipedia because of the chilling effect they create. Until he rescinds the threat—and I doubt he will—I cannot support him editing Wikipedia. Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. This isn't ever "blackmail". We don't ban people for saying they will use Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

[edit]

Pilotguy (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to unblock Betacommand, rather than join the discussion. [1] - auburnpilot talk 01:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Betacommand wins again. I bet this taught him a lesson he won't forget. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully nobody is going to re-apply a block until a consensus emerges. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say, well hot-diggity-dog, and so much for consensus, and so much for community! But I won't. I don't want to see Betacommand banned, just for him to realise that he's enforcing a very badly-framed policy, and he should realise that there are grey areas in which it is wise to tread carefully. --Rodhullandemu 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is bull, why does BetaCommand get a pass? For his information, there is ongoing discussion to revise or eliminate portions of NFCC which are being abused. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there any admins who have not been in a content dispute with beta? I can't name any. (I thought the ArbComm restrictions allowed any uninvolved admin to block him for not communicating, with "involved" being defined in a narrower manner than usual, but I haven't checked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the ones who keep defending him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for this unblock. And especially not by an admin who did not even find the time to participate in this discussion, very poor form. One admin cannot hold this process hostage like this...this is such a clear cut case that a reblock is indicated unless there are compelling reasons not to (unrelated to process that is). RxS (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WW is policy. An immediate reblock would be committing to a wheel-war, and itself would be a blockable offense. Doing so may well set off a chain of blockees-unblocking-themselves and blockers-being-blocked-by-others that frankly we don't want to see. I suspect that reblocking would change the threat into accurate prophecy. Please reconsider. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not considering it myself, just stating an opinion. RxS (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do anything that would irritate Betacommand. He is god. He answers to no one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The attitude isn't making anyone take your opinions seriously. Stick to facts, not sarcastic emotional appeals. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Kylu)Please let it go, BB. You're either totally misunderstanding the context of "not under 3RR" (I think you are far too smart for that) or you are simply venting because you disagree with Betacommand's interpretation of NFCC policies. If it's the latter, your snarkiness does not do your position on the issue any favors. Horologium (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Betacommand gets to slide by (yet again) speaks very poorly about the way wikipedia operates. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the accusations that I am an incivil Wikipedian and ignore consensus are certainly nothing short of a blatant lie. I also don't appreciate being personally attacked on my talk page. I did as a matter of fact, review the discussion. The discussion itself pointed out on several occasions that the block was clearly inappropriate because it was done by a party directly involved in a dispute. I have talked to Betacommand about this and he will be posting a statement here after he agrees to cool it. His behavior will not continue and he has assured myself as well as fellow admins of that fact. If it does, then we know what to do. Betacommand just needs to know how to work with others. Now, I am willing to further participate in this discussion, and come to an agreement here, only if this situation will stop being treated as a soap opera and we can change said discussion into a professional, forgiving, civil one. Can we at least agree on that part? -Pilotguy contact tower 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you see no difference between saying that there was consensus that the particular admin who made the block shouldn't have made it himself, and saying that the block itself was in error? There was consensus for the former, but nothing remotely close to consensus for the latter. You moved almost unilaterally in unblocking him. He earned his 3RR block both by his actions, and his declaration that he would continue edit-warring if he were unblocked. And it's disappointing that you class those questioning your against consensus action at your talk page as "attacking" you. I for one have not done so, and rather resent having it implied that I have. As for "soap opera", it is you that escalated the drama with a grossly unsupported unblock. Your accusing others of having "treated [it] as soap opera" is more than a bit ironic. S. Dean Jameson 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move, you moved on your own, against consensus. ""01:17, July 6, 2008 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Betacommand (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Agreement forming that previous block wasn't justified)." There was no agreement. The consensus was clearly to leave the 31-hour inplace, not unblock, not ban. Not only did he violate his arb restriction, you condoned his further incivil attitude and are teaching him that is okay and it's okay to cause more drama when he is blocked. We don't need this. The only reason I'm not re-blocking him is to avoid more drama. Rewarding bad behavior only causes more bad behavior. The fact he has lots lots of tools for wiki does not make his behavior okay. See thread on Pilotguy's talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

". His behavior will not continue and he has assured myself as well as fellow admins of that fact." Pilotguy, you have got to be kidding. BC's said this before and keeps being incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu: refusal to discuss

[edit]
Normally, I would try to discuss this with Rodhullandemu before bringing it here, but with others attempting to influence their behavior and a wholly unsatisfactory response so far, I think it's safe to say that deescalation will not be a particularly fruitful strategy.

We have here an administrator who blocked somebody with whom they were edit warring, for "persistent edit warring", and indefinitely no less, under the aegis of the aggrieved party refusing to respond (this, that and the conversation here notwithstanding). Not only that, but their response to the concerns of being too involved are being completely ignored; instead all we get is rules lawyering regarding what exactly isn't exempt from 3RR, when the community's best practices for years have been to look leniently on behavior such as Betacommand's. A refusal to discuss the propriety of your actions cannot fly. To top this off, Rodhullandemu doesn't seem to respect the sanctity of private correspondence: if he felt so injured and harassed, why could he just not forward it to ArbCom, like everything else involving non-public information?

Was there any reason Rodhullandemu chose not to report the unseemly behavior he saw to uninvolved administrators instead of shooting from the hip and then trying to hide the body in the river? It sure would have avoided the appearance of impropriety of blocking somebody for having the temerity to revert their edits. Surely he can see the sense in my concerns and why this kind of action is a problem and endeavor to avoid such warlike use of the tools in the future. east.718 at 01:48, July 6, 2008

  • FWIW, East718 wrote the above comment at the same time I wrote mine below and we were merged by MediaWiki. I agree with his points, and wouldn't written quite as much below had I seen his post first. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had any communication from East718 about this, for some reason. If I had tried to "hide the body in the river" (ugh!) I would not have immediately after blocking come here to report it, would I? If "the community's best practices for years have been to look leniently on behavior such as Betacommand's", then that is a piss-poor "best practice" because it can inculcate too much trust on one hand, and laziness on the other. In fact it's not a best practice at all, it's an abdication of responsibility. Exactly the point of this issue, without personalising it. --Rodhullandemu 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu

[edit]

Regardless of the merits of BC being blocked, I think it we need to discuss the appropriateness of Rodhullandemu performing the block. From my view of the history Rodhullandemu had been edit warring against BC, who was clearly making a good faith effort to enforce policy and even under the least favorable analysis BC's actions were not entirely unsupported. Rodhullandemu's made several reverts [2] [3] and had a long argument with BC on the talk page[4]. Due to of Rodhullandemu's involvement BC command perceived the block to be made as a continuation of the edit warring. I do not condone the entirety of BC's behavior related to this subject, but I believe that we would have all been better off if Rodhullandemu had an uninvolved third party perform the block. If another Wikipedian experienced with licensing had intervened the escalation may have been halted and the block might have been avoided resulting in an improved outcome for all involved parties. Especially in cases of arguments between experienced editors administrators deeply involved in the argument should seek the assistance of others rather than blocking on their own. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The indef block was quickly reduced to 31 hours, and while Rodhullandemu shouldn't have been the one to place the block, Betacommand's actions were far from innocent. The block should have been brought here before being placed, rather than as a review after the fact, but I don't see any suggestion that Rodhullandemu's behavior is part of a pattern. I also don't see this as a "warlike use of the tools" (as East suggests above). Inappropriate, no doubt, but Rodhullandemu seems to have acknowledged that. What more can we ask for? I don't see it happening again. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage Rodhullandemu to avoid blocking users he is undergoing conflicts with and instead simply post to ANI to allow an admin uninvolved in the current dispute to decide on a course of action. I'm specifically not commenting on if the block was warranted or not on this occasion, but performing it himself was unwarranted. Hopefully this will not be repeated. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An occasional mistake is allowed, but hopefully never the same mistake twice. Jehochman Talk 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's this kind of thinking that gets us into these messes in the first place. Naerii 05:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that whenever an admin makes a mistake they should be desysopped or what? Am I making a strawman? I dunno I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A mistake is something that typically one would recognise and apologise for. Naerii 10:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes far more sense than my rather silly interpretation, and I completely agree --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the validity of the block in question, I don't think it was a good idea for the admin in question to block Beta. I do not think it would be wise as some have suggested to make an arbcom out of this, unless this is some sort of ongoing behavior, and the admin in question has refused to learn from this same mistake repeatedly in the past. Rodhullandemu, in the future, especially if you are involved, if you need to take a block to ANI for review after placing it, it's probably a good idea to post to ANI without the block, and form a consensus for it before hand, as opposed to after-the-fact. I hope you take my advice seriously, learn from this event, and we can all move on soon. SQLQuery me! 05:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a worrying block, but unless there are suggestions that Rodhullandemu is prone to bad judgement I think we can leave it there. --Jenny 07:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RegenerateThis. It was a bad block (not becaue of content but because of involvement), but Rodhullandemu promptly came here with it to discuss. I think everybody involved can see where the initial problem with this block was, and there's no need for any further action. Dayewalker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I too late?

[edit]

Yet again I have missed the monthly BetaCommand ANI thread, simply because I am in a different timezone... Yay for being a Brit (and it being Sunday), say I! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I was too late to advocate my support for a block. I also know that he trashed the images again, with his usual lack of justification. I was willing to hold off comparing him to destructors like TTN, but now I'd say he isn't that much different. ----DanTD (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently something inside has died. I can't hide. I can't fake it either. — CharlotteWebb 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use review

[edit]

Little spamming here. The non-free content issues (not the blocking) could perhaps be solved more effectively if Wikipedia:Fair use review gets more teeth. See my comment here on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

[edit]

I've blocked him this time, for continuing to edit war (although I wrote 3RR as the reason), incivility toward anons, and misrepresentation of (an unclear) policy. (It's clear he's misrepresenting it, though.) As I understand it, the reason the block was removed was that the blocking admin was involved in a content dispute with him, and that he agreed not to continuing making the questionable edits. Both conditions no longer appear to be relevant in this block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, review here seems appropriate. I also question whether there are any uninvolved admins, so the most we could hope for in a block discussion is not to be involved in a current edit war. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd to state that beta is immune from blocking because all knowledgable admins have been involved with his contraversial edits, either for or against. But that's probably the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my above comments supporting the first block, I also support this block. Beta has completely crossed the line here, edit warring to enforce his expansive view of a policy for which there is current debate. S. Dean Jameson 14:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the 3RR, but as for the civility, it seems to be because he reverted an anon on his talkpage with the comment "remove trolling" or something similar. I don't see the problem with that, as the anon was definitely trolling. Kelly hi! 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the block was imposed before the anon trolling.--Rodhullandemu 14:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No here is where the trolling began, 20 minutes before the block. Kelly hi! 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there not a difference between being frustrated by the way BC enforces his personal interpretation of a hotly-disputed policy (which the anon IP clearly was) and "trolling"? Trolling has a clear definition, and the way I see it, what the anon IP wrote doesn't conform to that definition. And Arthur has made it clear that the block was for "edit warring", which BC was doing. S. Dean Jameson 14:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly uninvolved, as in I do not participate in image or bot operation concerns, but I did comment in the last time BC was brought to admin attention and I did just above. There is a very apparent problem, and that it is that either BC or a range of contributors are unable to contribute in a civil and collaboratory manner where BC is involved. It is a recurring problem, as I also previously noted. No matter who has more "right" on their side it is obvious that blocking BC is the less disruptive option, as blocking all those in dispute with BC will effect the encyclopedia more decisively. As to the content of the current dispute, it appears that BC has already rescinded on the agreement that allowed the most recent block to remain lifted. Endorse block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still wondering exactly where the "edit warring" took place. It appears to have been simply removal of comments on Betacommand's talk page, which he has a right to do and is not "edit warring". Unless some other evidence of edit-warring is shown, I'm uncomfortable with this block. Kelly hi! 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second with Kelly's opinion here. I'm wondering why the anon is not blocked for his/her violation of 3RR? Although I think Beta should be desysoped for his issues, but Beta has his own right to remove whatever makes him upset because the page is his talk page. That is not a 3RR violation.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beta was desysoped, quite some time ago, for similar reasons. He also had rollback rights revoked in March. TalkIslander 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification. When he caused some trouble one or two months ago, I still found his name at WP:LOA.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The incivility in the edit summary violates the previous arrangement that was agreed to at WP:AN I believe. Can't help with the edit warring though. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying stop trolling to the very uncivil anon is blockable behavior? I don't buy that.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what he said in his edit summary, if he had, that'd have probably been okay. What he said was "rvt troll". The distinction here is that he called someone a name. More importantly, per prior discussion on WP:AN, I'm pretty sure he's on some form of civility parole (I'm sure somebody here has a link to the discussion if you need it). —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beta went right back to removing the images he'd been blocked for edit warring over previously. It's all there in his contribution history. As I've said, I make no comment about the actual NFCC policy, but it's clear he wasn't going to stop the behavior he was blocked for in the first place, which was a condition of Pilotguy's initial unblock. S. Dean Jameson 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, what? He went back to the same article? I don't see it, but maybe I missed it, please provide a diff. If he's removing them from other articles without edit-warring, that's fine. Kelly hi! 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse block. It's long past time to give Beta the benefit of the doubt. Among the incidents being reported in this thread, his pattern of incivility and edit warring have been clearly established, and that's just the kind of thing he's supposed to be blocked for in his ArbCom enforcement. And unless there's one block that can stick to him, he'll just keep tagging and reverting whatever he wants because he knows he can't be stopped. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have readded the images to most of the articles, pending discussion here and at the NFCC page. This is not an endorsement of either side of the NFCC debate, but rather a simple reversion of BC's edit warring removals. I note that Lucasbfr has went behind and removed the images again from at least one of the articles, citing BC's interpretation of NFCC as "right." When will this end? S. Dean Jameson 15:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Beta's understanding of the current policy is largely correct, albeit somewhat on the conservative side. If nobody is complaining at the articles from which he's removing the images, then what is the problem? Kelly hi! 15:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. SDJ, please read the message I've left on your talkpage before you try to "help" here. – ırıdescent 15:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stepping back from this. Lucas has now begun removing the images again, and I won't be involved in an edit war. Best of luck to you all resolving this mess. S. Dean Jameson 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked again

[edit]

I see Arthur has unblocked, so maybe we can drop this. Another problem is that Arthur was engaged in an argument with Betacommand at the time of the block. Can involved administrators please post here before they do controversial blocks? :) Kelly hi! 15:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here. Does anyone have a piece of code that can just block Beta every 10 hours or so for a couple of hours? Would probably save all this hassel... TalkIslander 15:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked again. He's apologized for the incivility (at least on his talk page) and his interpretation seems to have some consensus, even if the links in his favorite essay don't support consensus, only acquiesence to enforcement. There's a subtle difference there. However, he is on civility parole, so I don't think there should be much dispute that the block was proper, although not all the reasons I gave were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens the moment he's unblocked? He goes straight back to removing the images - see his contribs. I very much feel that this shows a complete disregard for the current discussions going on - he continues edit-warring regardless of what has been said. Worse than that, he cites WP:FUEXPLAIN as his reasons for deleting. WP:FUEXPLAIN is an essay, written by one user, and is not policy, thus not reason to go around purging non-free content. TalkIslander 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Islander, he's enforcing policy, not an essay. If you don't like the policy, WT:NFCC is down the hall. I agree his approach sucks sometimes but we need people to do this kind of work. Or would like to volunteer to replace him? :) Kelly hi! 15:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed multiple times above, he's enforcing his own interpretation of policy. I shan't go into that again, it's been discussed to death above. TalkIslander 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And his interpretation is widely shared - but the policy page is the place to discuss that, I think. Kelly hi! 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I do not see how this is so. Sure, there are a determined number of people who see things his way, but to say that it is consensus is far from clear. Perhaps a discussion at the village pump would be more fruitful? WT:NFC is just not frequented by enough folks to accurately determine the community's view on this. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is perhaps the best idea I've heard. Posting at the Village Pump (or even soliciting community opinion through a process similar to the RfA Review that is just now coming to a close) would be appropriate. S. Dean Jameson 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is his apology? I don't see one, I just see more ranting that he should be able to do whatever he wants because everyone else is wrong. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I saw an apology for the incivility, not for the disruptive editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage?

[edit]

This latest Betacommand thread has gone over 62 KB so let's move to a subpage, shall we? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just archive it. The blocks/unblocks seem resolved, any policy differences or open admin conduct issues (I don't see any) can be discussed in a new thread or elsewhere. Spray this thread down with a fire extinguisher. Kelly hi! 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec on another section) Disagree. Beta's actions are still questionable, even if he were correctly interpreting policy, and the question of whether he should be blocked is appropriate here, as well as at WP:AE. Perhaps two new threads should be opened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is far from over. Definitely not ready to be archived. TalkIslander 15:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, unwatchlisting this now. Subpaging the discussion essentially kills it, so you all can argue here 'til you're blue in the face - since nobody will be paying attention, you'll never achieve consensus for any action. Kelly hi! 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you wouldn't mind if I blocked BC for violation of Wikipedia:RfAR/Betacommand 2#Remedies 1) (C), in that immediately resuming the actions that has lead to the block and subsequent debate is "untoward" behaviour? I am not going to, since I have reviewed my participation in the last debate which resulted in the Sam Korn Solution and no longer consider myself uninvolved, but I do think that BC's actions before, during and after the application of todays blocks to be in violation of the ArbCom remedies - and a block may be enacted by any uninvolved administrator. Consensus is not required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]

Betacommand has now begun edit-warring on the NFC page he is quoting ([5], [6]) to re-insert his disputed interpretation of the NFCC, whilst continuing to revert people quoting his version of the policy. [7] [8] [9] [10].

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies, Betacommand was told to refrain from further instances of untoward conduct. This edit-warring is clearly untoward. Saying "I am following policy" is not an excuse when the policy is disputed, and you have been given some very clear suggestions (previous warnings and blocks) to slow down.

Per the Arbcom remedy, and considering the other blocks logged in Betacommand's block log, I have blocked Betacommand for 48 hours. I will cross post this to his talk page and log the block on the Arbcom case. Neıl 龱 16:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concentrating solely on what Neil has pointed out here, I endorse this block. I suggest further discussion, if needed, takes place at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. I'm not going to comment on what happened before this, only to say that we (the community) need to sort out the disputed issues around non-free content and try and nail down consensus and stick to it while still allowing further debate to take place. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too fully agree with this. I made clear to Betacommand himself that if he continued such behavior, he would be re-blocked. -Pilotguy contact tower 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse BC reverted, with a poor edit summary, User:Islander's revert of a WP:BOLD edit of the policy per WP:BRD, and further revert to the BOLD version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is of note, other users are restoring that version as well. SQLQuery me! 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That points to the need for a discussion on the disputed aspects of the policy, or the enforcement of that policy. What we don't need is Betacommand's brand of reverting and edit warring. He is subject to a community restriction and an arbitration remedy. I forgot, though, that there was no enforcement section in the arbitration case (so I've stricken my pointer to WP:AE). If people can't agree over how to handle Betacommand, we might need to ask ArbCom for a clarification on this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already significant discussion happening on WT:NFCC but, as usual, it seems to be a walled garden of woo. This removal of images from lists also happened in a GTA article. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other, User:Kelly reverted before Neil protected the page. BetaCommand reverted the previous two times. The initial edit was by User:Masem, with a summary that noted the use of WP:BOLD. That Kelly is also wrong in not applying WP:BRD is not at issue, it is BetaCommands actions that is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further note - as LHvU says, I also protected WP:NFC for three days. I didn't even check to see what version it was on, a glance at the word "reverted" over and over again in the history sufficed. Neıl 龱 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the m:Wrong version, of course... I suspect you waited ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Perhaps I was too hasty in unblocking, but edit warring on guidelines to support your actions (even if you weren't the one to place the disputed guideline originally) is very difficult not to call disruption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Neil's block Hate to say I told you this would happen, but I did. BC's continued edit warring, apologizing and saying "I won't do it again", then going right back to it is getting REALLY OLD. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why is Betacommand not banned yet? His block log is frankly appalling. Why are we still letting him get away with causing all this fuss and drama? Betacommand has been helpful to me in the past with certain issues, so this is not because I hate him or anything like that. I think some time away from Wikipedia will do him, and everyone some good. There's a Betacommand block/issue, what, every week now? It's too much, and it's ridiculous. Al Tally talk 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand is not indefinitely blocked because he acts in good faith, and 90% of the time is productive and constructive. It is the unfortunate 10% of his actions that cause problems. Your suggestion almost sounds like a "cool down block" - I'm sure that's not how it was intended. Neıl 龱 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Betacommand's level of activity on Wikipedia, 10% disruption is a lot of disruption. The assumption of good faith doesn't preclude a ban -- if Betacommand were a newbie, he'd be toast. But because he's made a million edits and has accumulated an entourage of defenders, he's not only safe from being banned, he can break any rule he wants to without even being blocked for more than a few hours. I can only hope your block sticks and I am proven wrong. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this view entirely, unfortunatly. The problem is, the 'entourage of defenders', as you call them, are far too vocal to ever be considered in the same light as those against them. TalkIslander 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case it's arguably about time this conduct was referred to ArbCom for a review. Nothing seems to have ameliorated the long-term situation and there is little evidence that it won't continue. I don't think we should have to live with this level of disruption and drama. --Rodhullandemu 22:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last Arb request was declined in favour of the "Sam Korn solution", which seems to have worked well as far as it extended - we're not discussing automated edits now, anyway. Rather than going again to ArbCom, perhaps another discussion on further community restrictions is warranted. I don't see a flat-out ban going forward, but revert restrictions, topic bans, etc. might be contemplated and gain consensus if they are well-structured. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the uninitiated, (ie. me :P), "Sam Korn Solution"? TalkIslander 22:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're un-initiated to this, you might want to duck out for some popcorn, and a spare microwave oven to pop it in :) This is the official record, scroll to the last entry "Community consensus"", it contains the link to the community discussion. Also of possible interest, here (I think) is the link to the rejected ArbCom case. Franamax (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the "Sam Korn" discussion (actually started as a separate proposal entirely): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive146#Proposed_community_ban_of_Betacommand. Lots of discussion to sort through, but just search for "Korn" and you should find most of the relevant info. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, what a barrel of fun... Thanks for the links ;). TalkIslander 11:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "civility parole" mean anything?

[edit]

If it does, Betacommand would get his block extended for this:

"Neil, you disgust me. (link) is following EXACT policy, why dont you take time and review policy before you put your foot in your mouth."

Betacommand's defense is his usual one that it doesn't count as incivility if he considers it true. He replied to S. Dean Jameson that "you need to review CIV and understand that expressing a position that is accurate is not a violation of policy." WP:CIV says no such thing, of course. With his peculiar definition of civility, Betacommand is acting as if his civility parole doesn't exist.

As he has been previously blocked for 48 hours, I propose adding a 72 hour block to the end of it. The civility parole allows for "up to one week". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a further block is needed. I wouldn't block anyone for "you disgust me". Even though Betacommand is on civility parole, I think that's a little too much. Neıl 龱 06:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The further block certainly wouldn't come from Neil (re:Tango), and hopefully not from any other admin either. Am I right that it's getting fairly well established that a blocked editor has some latitude in expressing "I'M PISSED OFF!" on their own talk page? That might count against them if they ask for an unblock, but it shouldn't count towards further blocking, including being uncivil to those who follow them onto their own talk page for the duration of the block. The talk page can be protected if it gets bad, but that's the limit. Am I on track here? Franamax (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Within reason, yes (hysterical death threats or dire warnings of legal recourse would probably be a bit too much). Protect the page for the duration of the block rather than extend the block. Neıl 龱 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Block_review_of_User:Betacommand&oldid=1136116405"