Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Betacommand socks

User:Betacommand socks

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

Resolved

 – Ban applied by seicer based on consensus here. Further discussion likely to to degrade into Teh Drahmahsz. No prejudice to revisiting ban at some reasonable time in the future--Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on 29 December.[1] Before he was blocked, he removed an image from Grant Wood 8 times and was reverted each time.[2] He cited WP:NFCC#3,[3] and used an edit summary, "please read the non-free content polciy".[4] Today 72.69.113.237 (talk · contribs) made his first edit and removed the image with the edit summary, "please review the non-free content policy, this should not be placed in the infobox of a living person. also per WP:NFCC#3 it should only be used on the artilce about that painting".[5] and then again with the edit summary, "please review policy".[6]; then a third time, "image violates policy. dont use the image as visual reperenstive of the artist in question".[7] He removed a post from his talk page with the edit summary "revert vandalism".[8] As 3RR was reached on removing the image, another anon appeared immediately 24.233.147.149 (talk · contribs) with the first edit being to remove the image once more.[9] Ty 19:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im a sock of a user I have never met because I disagreed with the placement of an image? 72.69.113.237 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

also the IP that appears to be Betacommand is an Earthlink IP address. I use Verizon. 72.69.113.237 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recommend opening an checkuser request. --MASEM 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be declined. The privacy policy does not allow for the disclosure of IP addresses apart from in very specific circumstances. --Deskana (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the irony of a privacy policy protecting IP addresses on a website that displays thousands of IP addresses, I am curious why this case would be rejected. I don't think anyone is asking for BC's IP addresses, though obviously if these addresses were confirmed to be him they it would end up that way, but rather the confirmation that an indef blocked user is evading the block to edit war over the same article that got him blocked in the first place. Given that these IPs very obviously have a strong understanding of policy, including the focus on image policy, are edit warring in the same fashion as BC did and is using the same edit summaries as BC did, I don't think this would be a fishing expedition, but rather a credible accusation of block evasion. Resolute 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Go read the privacy policy. It is very specific about when information that is derived from the checkuser policy can be revealed. Your comment above shows that you have either not read the privacy policy, or have a fundamental misunderstanding of it. --Deskana (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The check that would be asked for reads like a Code F, and comparing it to other Code F cases on RCU, seems pretty standard to check suspected IP addresses against a blocked user. This seems to be the types of exceptions the privacy policy allows for. --MASEM 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a code F, I've made these kinds of checkuser requests in the past and not had them turned down. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming to have a great knowledge of how checkuser interacts with the privacy policy. Certainly nowhere close to your understanding. However, as Masem notes, the majority of requests currently at WP:RFCU include requests to check a registered user against an IP address. I see no reason why this case is any different than any of the fulfilled requests of the same type. Resolute 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He acts like BC, he sounds like BC, he behaves on the very same page in the very same way saying the very same thing as BC who got blocked there last month, just before this last block..Modernist (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the link you're looking for is WP:DUCK..._Gb^T/c 20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm now your talkin and Since when does a newbie IP recite policy citing WP:NFCC#3...uh in the same way BC does...I think it might be a duck..yeah..Modernist (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, this doesn't look like Betacommand. Betacommand (talk · contribs) edits to Grant Wood look like "14:03, 15 December 2008 Betacommand (Talk | contribs) (9,856 bytes) (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups)" (Yes, the edit summaries really have "$1", etc. in there; obviously he's using some defective program or bot without adequate testing. Again. That got him indef blocked.) Edits to Grant Wood by 72.69.113.237 (talk · contribs) look like "# 18:53, 15 January 2009 (hist) (diff) Grant Wood ‎ (image violates policy. dont use the image as visual reperenstive of the artist in question.)", and are clearly manual. There's ongoing vandalism at Grant Wood which seems unrelated to Betacommand's usual issues. Incidentally, the Grant Wood article is weak; it doesn't mention any of his large mural work done for the WPA, like "Breaking the Prairie". Perhaps the disputants might be encouraged to spend more time on the history of his work. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But not a very good argument however. The earlier edit summaries I cited above are not like the ones you've quoted and are exactly like the anon edit summaries. There is petty uninformed vandalism from time to time at Grant Wood and is easily recognisable as such, as is an experienced user indef blocked and using a sock to continue to edit war. Please add the WPA mural work to the article. Ty 20:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing he changed some jargon and old language habits otherwise we might've thought he was BC, right away...It would be great if you would add a section on the large mural work done for the WPA, "Breaking the Prairie" I'd like to see that added too. Modernist (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't anon IPs unable to use Javascript tools? The technical details aren't really my area, but it seems like a minor distinction when the content of the objection is so similar. Lithoderm 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A check on Betacommand has shown that he has been evading his block. These are the accounts he has been using.

• Shimane Kanagi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Canis Lupus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first has already been blocked by me as checkuser confirmed it was an unauthorised bot. What action is taken on the second account is up to the community. It is also important to note that Betacommand accused me of abusing checkuser and violating the privacy policy. I encouraged him to write a complaint on his talk page about it, so if you take action against the account, please do not protect the talk page. I have saved a copy of the log of my chat with him on IRC in the case that any accusation of abuse is raised. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Socking is a non starter. Indef it. I appreciate Betacommand's dedication to the project, but I would appreciate his desire to lay low more.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Already indeffed by Viridae. On the basis that it's second edit was to add User:Maria Difranco to the list of huggle users (perhaps a mistake), an account which has no contributions, can we safely assume that it's a sleeper? _Gb^T/c 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable assumption - want someone else to perform the block though when we get more opinions. Viridae^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That account is not registered. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, well made. A strange edit, in that case..._Gb^T/c 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Maria account was renamed to the Canis account [10]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the contributions of User:Canis Lupus. He's edited during June 3rd, 2008, while Betacommand was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. What a shocker. I'm pretty sure I could find more examples of block evasion if I'd look hard enough. --Conti|✉ 21:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban Betacommand?

Please note that Betacommand is denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned. Perhaps extending his block to a ban would be prudent to avoid any further incidents. --Deskana (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the time has come...BC is out of control, and he is incapable of change. Modernist (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Subheadinfg added by me for the change of direction. Hope you don't mind Deskana. Viridae^Talk 20:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I tweaked the title a bit. --Deskana (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry from last year. MBisanz ^talk 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• And to think, just a few days ago I was actually proposing to unblock him. No wonder he didn't seem to care for the proposition, as the block wasn't even interrupting his editing anyway. I would support a ban at this juncture. --Cyde Weys 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Thought he already was - support! Certainly, a ban is appropriate. I have no confidence this will help, but at least it could be made explicitly clear. Friday (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support for a ban; it's long needed. seicer | talk | contribs 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would have supported an unblock after a month of good behaviour while blocked. Not any more - I think a ban is the only option now. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oh my... I would have strongly supported an unblock after a while, but now I dunno. It's a bit like Beta wants to be banned. =/ Ale_Jrb^talk 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose' - I've come to a decision. Suggest maintaining indef block. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban until we can be shown that he Gets It. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Please note that Betacommand is denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned. - I need a bit more information - where is he saying this? What do you mean by "denying any liability" as in "it's not a ban, so socking no big deal"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't remember his exact words, but that was the impression I was getting off him. In my opinion his accusation of abuse of checkuser, then violation of privacy policy was him clutching at straws to get me to not reveal this. So him saying "I'm blocked, not banned, so I don't see the problem" is further clutching at straws. --Deskana (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of block evasion, or sockpuppetry (in fact, last time I am the one whom figured out the sock, etc). Half your argument asking us to ban this user revolves around him denying any liability as he was blocked, not banned... and, you can't recall exactly what, don't have a diff, et cetera? If it were anyone but beta, that wouldn't fly, and I'm surprised I haven't seen many question this yet. However, the socking needs to stop. I do fear that we are in the process of creating the next <insert random malicious vandal name here>. SQL^{Query me!} 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support ban I've supported a ban in the past, and will do so again. Majorly talk 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support ban: It's a shame it has to come to this, but we've put up with BC for too long. He obviously doesn't want to reform, so why should we give him the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendodge (talk • contribs) 2009-01-15T21:26:15
• Support ban - there are some people whose names, when they turn up in the title of a new section on WP:ANI in my watchlist, just make me groan inside. Beta has to be top of that list. I've never had anything to do with him, nor have I commented on any of the innumerable discussions that have taken place both here and elsewhere previously. Whatever benefits he and his bots may, in the past, have brought to Wikipedia are, however, clearly being outweighed by his inability to accept that his way of doing things is completely unacceptable, and his continued disruption, socking and worse still (in my view) his continued denial of any wrong-doing and mudslinging at those who are trying to stop him are clearly a massive net detriment to Wikipedia. My only regret is that if a ban does result from this discussion then in about three months' time my watchlist will undoubtedly show a new section entitled "Proposed unbanning of Betacommand", and the whole drama will just start again. _Gb^T/c 21:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have that reaction in some cases, too. Since creating new noticeboards is currently the fashion, it's almost worth suggesting the creation of Wikipedia:Noticeboard for re-visiting perennial drama so that the signal-to-noise ratio improves a bit. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support the time has come...Modernist (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - While I have defended Beta's work with non-free images in the past, including questioning the most recent block, evading blocks with socks shows disregard to the WP community and process. --MASEM 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support... Just doesn't get it. Grandmasterka 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Unbelievable...sad, and unbelievable. His absolute iron-clad determination to ignore everyone and everything that inconveniences him for the last year has been terrible to watch. I've said several times that he is on a personal crusade to stick his fork in the toaster, and nothing anyone can say or do to him will make him stop. It's like an overwhelming and irresistible compulsion for him that has alienated those who supported him and hoped he'd come around. I don't understand it--I never have--but socking (and botting) while indefblocked...well, there's no going back now. And it would have been SO DAMN EASY for him to just stop at any point. But like I said, he's determined. So are we. Sorry Beta. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Socking? Talk of "liability" as to being blocked/banned doesn't even rise to wikilawyering. I was standing by, waiting to see if there might be some hope. However, there is something clearly untowards about this account. Like Friday, I thought BC was already banned but perhaps this will help skirt any misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant, but very strong support - There is either an inability or a lack of want to reform, either way Betacommand is too disruptive to be allowed to continue. — neuro^(talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• I was uneasy about the recent block. He does excellent work and only seems to get into arguments over copyrighted material that shouldn't be here in the first place. Oppose. --TS 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I thought he already was. If not, extending it to a ban is the same thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support He doesn't contribute to a collegiate environment. This behaviour wastes too much of everyone's time and energy. Ty 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Very reluctantly, but I believe we need to send the strongest possible message to Betacommand that the community has and appears to continue to not want him to edit the project in any way, shape or form. I'm not opposed to revisiting the ban after a period of time, but only if there's absolutely no further socking and no further incidents. Nick (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, especially since he's been evading blocks all along apparently (not comment from Conti above). Block evasion during a time when he should be cooling off is highly inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This is very sad. If he had lain low, maybe cleaned up his act a bit, I would have supported an unblock in the near future. Now we know that the continuous blocks really are ineffective as he is using other accounts, although that's nothing new. The shocker is the fact he's using an unauthorised bot, which is the ultimate signal that he has no intention whatsoever of ever following those restrictions. He doesn't get it. He doesn't want to get it. Enough is enough. --.:Alex:. 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose in this instance; Betacommand remains indef blocked, and will be for as long as there seems to be a problem, but by banning this account there is then no motivation for BC not to sock (or otherwise go to the bad). If a ban is placed, I would request that it be for 3 or 4 months only and should then be reviewed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but last I checked, we weren't here to coddle betacommand and make sure he's happy at every turn. If we ban him and he feels that is motivation to sock then it is just further evidence of his disrespect for the community and further evidence he shouldn't be here. He shouldn't need any motivation not to sock if he truly wants to edit here and do what is best for the community. His socking now is yet mroe evidence that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks and will just carry on doing whatever he thinks is right. The community doesn't need that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Who is mollycoddling? I am attempting to diminish disruption to the encyclopedia, and although I respect that you have your opinions I should be grateful if you would not misinterperet mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support shows utter contempt for the community at every turn. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just to point out, somewhat ironically, that he's right - as usual - about the non-free Grant Wood image that started the thread, as American Gothic already has its own article. Black Kite 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I respectfully disagree, and concur with Tyrenius and JMilburn..BC was completely off in his initial actions, although his point was taken in not using the infobox, otherwise I'd say he was out of line...Modernist (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a rathole that is completely and utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Which may be why it was listed as a comment. It is interesting though. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Just because a user does something correctly it doesn't mean that they suddenly become some sort of role model. I don't really see how this comment is relevant, unless I'm missing something. — neuro^(talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed it is interesting. At this point, it probably does not matter that he's trying to help the project. He was asked to stop editing here, and, chose instead to sneak back in as another user. SQL^{Query me!} 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, he wasn't right in his action, because this is a project that works by consensus. Instead of re-opening the discussion on the image, he just bludgeoned away determined to impose his point of view. Ty 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Conditionally Oppose ban: I have long believed that Beta's problems under his Betacommand account stem from long held grudges as a result of the work he did on non-free images. The fact that he can run up 10,000+ edits on an alternate account without the same problems seems to support this theory (though, I am aware that having two accounts may have made this easier). I would strongly suggest that after an appropriate period of time off for socking while blocked (which is just disrespectful to the community), that Beta be allowed to come back on an account know only to ArbCom. If he can edit without trouble on this new account - that's the end of this long drama.. if not - then perhaps a ban might be in order. The one thing I am sure of is that the Betacommand account should never edit again - it is a drama magnet, if it did nothing other than revert blatant vandalism, people would still find a way to complain. --Versageek 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • (ECx5!!!) Yeah Versa, it's cuz we all hate Beta so much and love complaining. All dozens and dozens of us, many who have repeatedly stuck up for him in the past. If anything has drawn this painful process out as long as it has, it has been the apologists who demand nothing from Beta but excuses and dispense nothing but platitudes. Maybe you and Beta should share an account, since you have a similar persecution complex. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I would ask that you strike the personal attack. I happen to be fond of non-free images & I understand why those who spent lots of time adding them are upset that we've thus far used a bull-in-a-china-shop method of reigning them in. If I were one of those people, I'd probably be sore too. The only way to know for sure if the problem is "Betacommand the account" or "Betacommand the user" - is to separate the two. --Versageek 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not much left to say. Same insistence on making rapid-fire edits with automated tools (including a few mistakes I found), same insistence that he has the right to edit here, same lawyering evasiveness - we never said Betacommand and all his other registered or unregistered accounts, now and in future, in whole and in their several parts, whether by sea or by land.... Beta, did you tell anyone you were disappearing to a previously registered account? When you comment in the same discussions as yourself [11], it seems you invalidate your whole "wish to start over" anyway. I'd never thought it was too much & too late - until today. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - block evasion is a non-starter. Throw away the key. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but keep indef blocked. Versageek said everything I was going to say. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Lessheard vanU's logic about a ban leaving BC with no motive not to use sockpuppets is good, although I agree with Versa that the Betacommand account has become a 'drama magnet'. My question is: if the Canis Lupus account was not related to Betacommand, would its edits alone warrant a block? The answer, no, although the fact that it was used to evade blocks weakens that argument considerably. Block evasion aside, the edit history of User:Canis Lupus shows that BC can edit constructively with comparatively little drama. I agree that the best idea would be for BC and all related accounts to disappear into the aether. If he wishes to resume productive editing his new account should be revealed to Arbcom for (what should be) obvious reasons. This solution would a) pour liquid nitrogen on the flaming drama that seems to surround Betacommand (by simply not allowing anyone to know his new account, providing BC had the common sense to avoid any strong ties to his past under his new name) and b) allow everyone to move on and shut the door on all this madness by providing at least some finality. Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (EC × 9)—While his behaviour isn't exactly ideal, the work that he does for the encyclopedia is worth the fights over bots, images, et cetera. Black Kite's comment above underscores this point. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant support This may be a case of the right thing done the wrong way. Regrettably, a pattern has emerged that I had hoped would not be repeated. Unfortunately, the user is to impetuous and repeatedly goes about things the wrong way. The value of his efforts are and have been outweighed episodes like this. Yes, his work has been incredible. But it just is not worth the disruption and drama. The opportunities to change have been presented, in reflection of his value. Bullseye has put it poignantly-- "And it would have been SO DAMN EASY for him to just stop at any point." Regrettably, he cannot or he would have by now. Dlohcierekim 22:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support ban, clearly doesn't get it. It could have been nice to work with him, but he doesn't seem to be willing to work in a collaborative environment (read: get along with others, and follow all of the rules, not just those that suit him). Kusma (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose amounts to kicking someone who is down.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's not like Betacommand is leaving us much of a choice. Just a few days ago, people supporting an unblock were quoting this as a sincere apology on Betacommand's part. I can't see how anyone can continue to defend him now: it's now crystal clear that BC is unwilling to acknowledge any kind of responsibility for his actions, unwilling to accept any of the criticism as valid, unwilling to make the slightest effort to make up for his mistakes, unwilling to respect the rest of the Wikipedia community, unwilling to abide by even the most basic principles of civility and honesty. It's hard to believe that he won't continue to evade blocks (it's not like it's difficult) but for the record, he's not welcome here anymore. This is not about his controversial image work. Many, myself included, respect the work of editors who enforce NFCC. But most can do it without causing the drama that so often comes with BC's attitude toward those who disagree with him. I would note that, at the very least, the Canis Lupus account was in effect an unauthorized bot and was running AWB despite the fact that Betacommand had lost that privilege. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question: What exactly is a ban supposed to accomplish, that leaving the user indef. blocked, and, noting the continued sockpuppetry would not? I mean, other than a dramaful ANI discussion that will invariably leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths, arguments between users, and other such disruption. Given the user's history, I don't think a 'formal ban' will matter in the slightest. SQL^{Query me!} 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It would (as Deskana noted at the start) make it clear to him that he is not welcome to edit under any account. Viridae^Talk 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • 'You are blocked' is plenty clear. In each instance, it has been crystal clear that the user was blocked. SQL^{Query me!} 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Crystalc lear to everyone except Betacommand apparently. Viridae^Talk 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It was made clear to him before, too. I recall before (I'm not going to dig it up, but, I think it's on one of his talkpage archives), that he was told if he edited with the Betacommand2 account while blocked, it would be blocked too. And, he didn't. Therefore, it seems to me he understands. I still don't see the virtue in starting all this drama, when leaving him blocked, and, noting the sockpuppetry would have sufficed just as well, and, with less issues (I logged in in the first time in a while, intent on starting a new article, and, made the mistake of checking my watchlist... got sucked in here... And, that mistake is just about over.) SQL^{Query me!} 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You are asking about what the distinction is between two things that are essentially the same, except by different names. Banning a person from the project results in effectively the same things happening as leaving the primary account blocked and blocking and reverting the sockpuppets that appear. Uncle G (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Bingo! You got exactly what I was getting at. Same damn thing, there is no reason to have several pages of arguing about it. We've got enough to do, without these pointless debates. He was already blocked, he was unlikely to be unblocked, and, with the recent CU evidence, he's extremely unlikely to be unblocked any time soon. Absolutely no need to waste the community's time with more pages of this stuff. This is exactly why we have subpages and subpages on BC, because, every time he comes up on ANI, someone just cannot help themselves, and absolutely has to start a BAN BETACOMMANDS thread it seems. Don't you agree it would have been better for all involved, to simply leave him blocked (and, now is probably an appropriate time for the {{indefblocked}} template on the userpage, if any is), note on his (protected?) userpage, regarding the socks (tho here was sufficient too), and move the hell on? Did we need the full circus? Could we have all spent our time a lot more wisely? I know I could have. SQL^{Query me!} 04:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - From what I can see, Beta deserved his indefinite block back in late December. He got it for repeatedly using automated tools when an Arbitration Committee ruling told him not to. When you evade such a block via sockpuppetry, there's only one road left, and it's not a good one to follow. --Dylan620 (Contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Just more and more disrespect for the community out of him. The community needs to start being strong with these kinds of users.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite and Versageek. I would also note that throughout the period he's been blocked, he's been continually operating and improving his IRC reporting bot for the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel to help detect pagemove and other vandalism. Yes, that's a sure sign of someone out to damage the project. Mr.Z-man 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you make your last comment? No-one has suggested that Beta's intention is to damage the project, just that he does so unintentionally. Algebraist 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with Algebraist. Everyone understands that Betacommand isn't trying to destroy Wikipedia. Oh and Z-man I would note that throughout the period he's been blocked, he's been continually operating his sockpuppet account. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Why else would we ban someone? And I would dispute the statement that "Everyone understands." Mr.Z-man 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Did you not read my comment? We are banning Beta because his presence is damaging to the project. Given this, his intentions are irrelevant. Algebraist 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Simply being here can only have a neutral effect. Its his actions that we judge on, not other people's reactions to his presence. Mr.Z-man 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Whatever: We choose whether or not to block an account based on its contributions, and nothing more. The person behind the account "MZMcBride" may or may not be the person behind the account in a year, or even tomorrow. That's simply the reality of the situation. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What? The latter part of that doesn't make any sense. Yes, lots of things are possible, but in practice, it's the same person behind the account for the life of the account at least 99.9% of the time. So I'm not really sure what your point is. --Cyde Weys 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think there is no doubt that Betacommand's intentions are good, and that he wants to help the project. However, I also think there is no doubt that he has exhausted the community's patience with his continued disregard for Wikipedia policy and rules. He was ordered to shut down his bot, yet he apparently continues to operate it. If he thinks he is right, he will edit war to push his preferred version while refusing to listen to other editors. In short, he is completely unable to collaborate. And really, why should he obey any policy he doesn't like? Every time he's been called out, enough people have rushed to his defence that the discussion ends up a muddled mess. Many editors have been banned for less, and I think it is past time to give BC a vacation from this project. Resolute 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for nowThe greater part of his problem is not communicating with users. He did a lot of good work but of course people are going to be upset by the loss of their fair use images and he almost never replies to questions in that respect. I wouldn't upload another fair use image if hell froze over due to him. I would not like to see him banned just yet though, but would like the indefinite block to remain. That offers an opportunity for him at some later date to prove that he can be trusted. Socking while blocked and possibly using a bot no matter how good the work, is not the way to prove that.--Sandahl (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Reluctant support - I know Beta can be helpful, but I think it is time we put this to rest. Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous - he is blocked and he is banned already. !Voting on it isn't going to change things. He clearly doesn't think the rules apply to him and is no different from any other banned user who uses sock puppets to evade the ban. --B (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support or Oppose Yes his edits have been harmful, yes many hours have been wasted on tracking down socks and CUs and ANIs. I honestly think he's bright enough to get around anything we throw up at him. It's been made pretty clear that the project does not want his presence. Whatever will end all these lengthy, mostly unneeded discussions is where my vote stands. §hep • ^Talk 05:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unhappy support Because he's left no other avenue, and that status would make it non-controversially or ANI-worthy to block further. The whole situation is Stupid. rootology (C)(T) 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support, I had hoped that BC could lay low for awhile and we could revisit this at a later date when the situation had cooled down. Using alt accounts while blocked to make the same sorts of edits he was blocked for pretty much closes the deal for me. I'm happy to reconsider the ban at some time down the track, but for now dealing with BC is just more trouble than its worth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC).
• Support In the previous discussions, I've tried to look at ways in which we can tweak the conditions that Betacommand is under, so that they are watertight. We all saw him pretending contrition, and assuring us that he would stick to his conditions if unblocked. Of course he would! He would stick to the conditions because he was going to do all the things he isn't allowed to do on sock accounts. Every time that we sanction Betacommand, he ignores that sanction, and when caught out he patiently explains to us why what he has done is entirely reasonable. His contempt for us is total. Yes, I fully expect him to sock again, because I don't believe he will ever learn, but are we to adopt a policy of not sanctioning editors who will ignore those sanctions. The game is over, the last chance was given, the really really really last chance was in prospect, but Betacommand couldn't even wait to be given that chance before he blew it. Mayalld (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Very strong support' -Hasn't this been done yet? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Since it seems that we have reached a strong consensus, here and below, and on other discussion pages, I've went ahead and applied the banned template. seicer | talk | contribs 05:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Betacommand

I was attempting to start over, people may or may not agree with the statement Im about to make, Ive been harassed, this has been going on for over 18 months now. I started to get sick of the harassment so I created a fresh account so that I could contribute without being harassed. under User:Canis Lupus I have 10,716 edits with no issue. I attempted to start over can anyone blame me for trying to get away from the drama? all I want to do is go back to doing what I do best, improving the encyclopedia, something i was doing quite well as Canis Lupus and before the whole non-free mess. β^_command 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Copied from his talk page by Deskana (talk)

"fresh account" - wasn't one of those fresh accounts running a bot? Isn't that the very models of behaviour that keep this board lit up with BC threads? Fresh? sounds pretty stale to me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to that comment. Viridae^Talk 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is still block evasion. You are not immune from the rules. — neuro^(talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You have not been harassed; being reminded constantly to conduct yourself according to WP policy and practice, and being questioned over edits made by bots you have scripted and being complained of because you are not answering are problems of your own making. You really do have to understand that it is not WP, or a majority of its editors, a significant minority, or just a group of editors that have a problem in regard to your edits but you. If you can embrace the concept that it is you that needs to change, then there is the possibility of you being recognised as a useful contributor again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And of those 10,000 "edits with no issue", how many were made by an unauthorised bot? Or did Beta really sit at his computer for ten hours or so a day adding orphan tags to articles in alphabetical order...? _Gb^T/c 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I could check in detail, but when I looked at a limited sample of his edits, I didn't see a lot with the characteristics of bot behaviour that checkuser shows. --Deskana (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's absolutely blindingly obvious that Betacommand has been harrassed and hounded. That he has run up so many edits in a parallel account without problem is proof of that. I recommend to Betacommand that he quietly select a new account and continue editing. Wait a few weeks for the fuss to die down, though. --TS 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Not seeing "a lot" doesn't indicate that it isn't occuring - even on a small scale operating an unauthorised bot is a breach of policy. There is no such thing as a small policy breach in this case - he either did or he didn't, and he most certainly did. — neuro^(talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the link in my comment above shows approximately 450 identical edits in alphabetical order, with no edits of a different nature intervening, and an identical edit summary each time - a series of edits from a date that I pretty much chose at random. If that's not a bot then I'm a banana..._Gb^T/c 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We generally rely more on 'Is the process helping the project', than we do on 'Papers please'. A lot of times, an unauthorized bot (the case with several adminbots for years prior to having an easy way to approve them), if doing a needed, supported, useful task, without causing problems, is completely ignored. The first thing one should generally jump to instead of "OMG UNAUTHORIZED BOT", is "Is this user helping the project, or just causing problems?". However, the real issue in this case, is block evasion. The user in question was clearly told "You are not welcome here at this time", and chose to ignore this. I'm not quite clear on what a ban on the user in question is supposed to accomplish, given the history, but, however you guys choose to waste your time... SQL^{Query me!} 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes true and that approach works in most cases, but Beta was specifically told he was not allowed to run a bot in any form because he proved incapable of having that responsibility. That is the case when 'Papers please' is appropriate, because it was instiuted to prevent damage in the first place. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, a lot of that was sort of generalized, and not entirely relevant to the case at hand. SQL^{Query me!} 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a kind of groupthink, or witch hunt. His behavior isn't particularly bad, his work is good and he can work well if he's not harassed. Basically he should quietly vanish from sight and get on with the work he clearly loves. --TS 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Groupthink? Block evasion isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on getting a new account and quietly moving on, but, frankly at this point, blocked means blocked. Eventually, the community will figure it out, and, it will hurt his chances to ever legitimately return again. Continually evading blocks, is not the way to go about it, ever. Given the high degree of emotions and bias that seem to swirl around this user, I'm not exactly sure right now what to suggest even as a way to return. SQL^{Query me!} 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony, it seems he can work well if he doesn't have to work with people who think he's wrong. As he is sometimes wrong, this means he can't work here, and that has nothing to do with harassment. Kusma (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of letting the Beta moniker vanish quietly and then taking up a new account is that the type of edits (focusing on non-free images) will be rather obvious and if he runs into people that revert his correct edits (per NFC policy), the same problems may arise. --MASEM 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If Betacommand had started over with no issue, then this discussion would not be happening. The fact is that he is impossible to work with as a colleague, unless you are in total agreement with him. The only way this project succeeds is good will to find a way to resolve disagreements, and sometimes not get your own way. Betacommand lacks that will. Ty 23:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

10,000 edits without issue, eh? I'll give him credit for never getting blocked, that's a start but of course, he was doing his most controversial work with the Betacommand account, whereas Canis Lupus was mostly his unauthorized version of Betacommandbot. But you can still see ominous trends on the Canis Lupus account: dubious CSD tagging [12][13][14][15], dubious PROD tagging [16][17][18] including adding a PROD tag to an article that had already been tagged for speedy deletion by Betacommand [19] (declined) and then prodded by Betacommand [20] (also declined), a bit of revert warring [21], reverting messages on his talk page when users come to criticize his actions [22][23][24], biting newbies (e.g. User talk:Titanic14), using the sock account to defend Betacommand [25], using the sockpuppet account during not only under the current block but also under the previous three, screwing up with archiving [26]. This is not the new and improved Betacommand. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've seen another editor banned for a year, for a whole lot less than this guy...and then this guy just flaunts the rules again....and then this guy flaunts the rules again....and people debate? ....He's incorrigible because he got away with it - apparently for a long, long time...ban him here, he always seems to have another plan..What is this? Modernist (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrmm ... is it still worth correcting mistakes over flout/flaunt, or has it reached the point where the incorrect usage has become common usage? --Cyde Weys 03:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You know I prefer flaunt, but if you prefer flout...well, I think the overall points been made...Modernist (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, flaunt and flout mean essentially the same thing. HalfShadow 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To flaunt is to show off, as in the old saying, "If you've got it, flaunt it." To flout is to defy. In this case, it could be a bit of both. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: We have given indefinite blocks for much less, and we have banned for much less than what Betacommand has done. If you want to show the community that you are a responsible editor, or that you have improved and would like to show the community that, then by all means, sock away and create multiple accounts, edit with bot-like speed and accuracy, and then blame others when your accounts are revealed. Sorry, you still garner no sympathy. I guess I need my pitchfork and bib-overalls now. seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this harassment Betacommand speaks of? Many of the people arguing for his ban here in this discussion (including me) were once his most strident supporters. But he has steadily lost us over time by doing exactly the same things over and over again that led him into so much trouble. --Cyde Weys 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Harassment does exist: some editors have wanted BC banned for a long time and he did periodically receive a bunch of insults on his talk page. However BC has redefined "harassment" as "any criticism of my actions" and his supporters have bought in to this paranoid image of BC as a victim. The proposed ban of BC is not the result of harassment and it's about time for his supporters to understand that. ArbCom asked him to stop running BCbot without BAG approval and he decided he'd solve that issue by running an unauthorized bot. ArbCom asked him to keep his cool and he collected block after block for incivility. ArbCom asked him to be more responsive to criticism and I don't think anyone can argue that he did that. But this is just harassment in the eyes of the BC cheerleading squad. BC evades blocks and they're basically saying "what's an editor to do when he's being harassed". To illustrate how absurd BC's paranoia has become, when I blocked BC a few weeks ago, he accused me of doing this because I disagreed with him on the issue of an image on Grant Wood when in fact I had supported his stance [27]. As I noted in earlier debates, the admins who've been most involved in the BC saga in the past few months are admins who were initially keen on finding ways to resolve the issues peacefully and certainly didn't have a "let's ban BC" agenda. Cyde recently tried to propose an unblock of BC but now that he supports a ban I'm pretty sure BC is thinking "I never thought Cyde would become part of this harassment campaign". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

3 month ban in which he will be randomly checkusered to check for sockpuppetry. When the ban expires he may return to an account made for him sometime in the intervening 3 months by a (logged out) arbcom member. He may edit with that account and only that account upon expiration of the three month ban. Only arbcom and checkusers are to be notified of the account's name. He may not use automated tools in any shape or form. Any repeating examples of gross incivility or edit warring or other violation of the terms of the agreement leads to the account name being revealed and the community can decide what to do about it. Any sockpuppetry during the ban times leads back to the community discussion again. Thoughts? Viridae^Talk 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Algebraist 23:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looking for some middle ground. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So how be we just get down to it and work out the terms for the next couple of times he breaks his parole/block/ban? You know, just have the conversation now so we don't have to go through all this wasted discussion. Seeing as how we're all here and everything. Wiggy! (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to reset the ban and double it every time it is broken. But i dont think anyone has a taste for a half measure anyway. Viridae^Talk 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• No Why should the community give him any middle ground? Its just one disrespectful action after another with him. Whatever good faith he earned from doing image work here was burned long ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The community needs a rest from all this. If he keeps a clean record, then I dare say he will be allowed back eventually. A year would probably do the trick. But when he returns, he should be accountable. If he then works well with others, there will be no problem. This has happened with other users. Ty 23:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Seriously no - complete waste of time - he's never stuck to any of those promises before, why is he going to start now? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: We don't have the time nor resources to begin 'randomly checking people for sockpuppetry'. We have a backlog at WP:SSP as it is, and that is where our resources should go; not checking to see if Betacommand is socking today or not. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Beta's attitude at the best of times can be summarized as 'I'm right and fuck what everyone else thinks', and now it's 'Fuck your rules; I'll just log on my sock' as well. Everto quisquiliae. HalfShadow 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Been there, done that, tired of the drama. He's blocked, he's banned, and it should stay that way. The edits from Canis Lupus (talk · contribs) have some problems. This one # 00:22, 13 January 2009 (hist) (diff) m Football ‎ (robot Adding: af, als, an, ang, ar, ay, az, bar, bat-smg, be, be-x-old, bg, bn, br, bs, ca, ceb, cs, cv, cy, da, de, diq, el, eo, et, eu, fa, fi, fo, fr, frp, fur, fy, ga, gd, gl, gv, hak, he, hi, hr, ht, hu, ia, id, ig, io, is, it, iu, ja, ka, kk,) [28] seems to be by a 'bot. Many edits just represent stylistic changes that weren't really necessary. He's voted on some issues using this sock.[29]. Some edits are utterly bogus.20:07, 2 January 2009 Canis Lupus (Talk | contribs) m (2,826 bytes) (Reverted edits by 63.229.0.184 (talk) to last version by Julius Sahara) (undo). That one changed a valid link to point to a dead AOL Hometown link. AOL Hometown shut down in October. Looks like yet another buggy Betacommand automated process. --John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support It's good to see attempted resolution. I also concur with the comments of Black Kite, Versageek and others. There is obviously no consensus on ban and this proposal may gain support. I also deplore the vendetta elements here and the groupthink comments of one user that he doesn't know much about BC but ... .Mccready (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta? Names, diffs or any other evidence would be welcome. I'll gladly go to ArbCom if we can't agree on a ban: I'm not sure how supporters of BC can still argue that we should just reach out to an editor who systematically evaded blocks, ran an unauthorized bot on a sockpuppet account when his bot was shut down, used an alternate account after promising to stick to his main account [30], reneged every promise he made about his behaviour. Mccready, do you really find this even remotely acceptable? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose enough is enough! Betacommand is community banned, and I see no short term move from that position. If he keeps his nose clean for a full 12 months (no editing whatsoever, no self-appointed chances to make a fresh start, no socking, no nothing), then let him come back with a track record of actually respecting the decisions of the community, and ask for his ban to be lifted. Mayalld (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The community has lost patience completely with BC. That's the classic definition of a "bannable moment." Reducing it to three months is an invitation to drama. SDJ 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - He has already exhausted community trust. — neuro^(talk) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although I like how you're trying to find a solution, I no longer see the point in coming up with these complicated, unenforcable measures. The community was prepared to give him a final chance, but he had to go and do this before we even gave it to him. It doesn't matter what we do, because he will just find another way to use his cyborg accounts. Judging by the comments above, he is no longer welcome on Wikipedia anymore, and it's at this point that there is simply no going back. --.:Alex:. 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sockpuppeting to continue doing botwork and to stick up for the arguments made on his primary account [31] have to be the last straw. Somewhere along the way, this user stopped doing what was good for the project and started doing what was good for himself. Maybe a 12-month hiatus will help him rediscover the former. It is good to try to find compromise solutions, but it just does not seem to be worth it for this case. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• He is banned. The only virtue I can see in this proposal is the attempt to set up an eventual return. Frankly, I don't believe this editor would meet any conditions imposed, so I don't think this suggestion will work. No thanks. GRBerry 19:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If he can observe this ban for 6 months & not resort to sock puppets, only then would I consider discussing giving him a strict parole period. There is just something unhealthy about his compulsion to fight against fair use/unfree images. I would describe this as a symptom of OCD, but I'm sure someone would interpret this as a personal attack on BC. -- llywrch (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Get out means get out, not sneak back in when you think no one's looking. Jtrainor (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bother?

I'm wondering why we are bothering with these ban and unblock polls on Betacommand. Back in July when I filed the now deleted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Betacommand, I was told several CUs had been run and referred to arbcom, but that the results would not be released to me. Now it turns out that this Canis Lupis account has been run since May of last year, including when Beta was blocked. If checkusers and arbs are going to help him evade the community ban on bot editing, the blocking policy on block evasion, and help by permitting admins to grant block evading userrights such as IPBE, when the checkusers know the individual is abusing multiple accounts, it is pretty meaningless for the community to keep having these discussions. Obviously the decision has been made to aid Betacommand in evading community restrictions, regardless of what the community thinks, so why are we even bothering to continue this debate? MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting allegations but they sound pretty speculative. The question should just be asked directly to ArbCom. Call me naive but I don't think there's much reason for them to lie about all this now that the community has decided to put a stop to all this crap. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this is the second time I've been involved with, with an entirely different set of checkusers, where results were reported in a misleading manner to protect a user from sanctions, I doubt it is a rare occurrence. And I also suspect filing and RFAR with the jist of "Why did you guys try and help Beta avoid sanctions imposed by the community by hiding CU results and misusing IPBE right grants?" would probably not elicit a useful response. MBisanz ^talk 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.