Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:23, 27 March 2007 view sourceChrislk02 (talk | contribs)29,820 edits →Statement by Chrislk02: clarification← Previous edit Revision as of 15:25, 27 March 2007 view source Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits →Metzenberg-ZayZayEM: removing case as declined, 0/5/0/0; arbitrators recommended earlier dispute resolution steps if neededNext edit →
Line 205: Line 205:
---- ----


=== Metzenberg-ZayZayEM ===
: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' ], ], ], and ]


==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|Metzenberg}}
*{{userlinks|ZayZayEM}}

I will inform ZayZayEM of this request for arbitration immediately after it is filed, although I frankly believe that he is watching my Contributions log closely and that he will already know.

I contacted roughly 50 different users who had expertise on Jewish philosophy and theology, Hebrew language, and related topics. My efforts to bring potentially neutral commentators and experts to the page as mediators can be seen in my contribution logs, and a number of them responded. Here are some of the Users who responded to my request and made comments in the talk on the page:

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

==== Statement by Metzenberg ====

The record of the Talk pages of these articles will speak for itself. The dispute began approximately one week ago when I contributed a new article, ]. Within a few hours, ZayZayEM showed up on the page, and began deleting and rearranging material without addressing it on the Talk page. It was immediately clear that he had no knowledge of the material. Within hours, the dispute spread to linked pages that I was also working on. Things remained civil at first, but ZayZayEM began a pattern of disruptive editing. Each time I would edit, he would be there within minutes making changes. I requested several times that he back off and let me finish. On several occasions, I was unable to save a page because immediately after I started working there, he was there trying to do something to the materials I was entering. I found it impossible to work on these pages. I feel that I am being stalked. I can't see that he has any personal interest or expertise in these areas, and I feel that he is following me. Although I felt that this '''stalking behavior''' is an unwanted intrusion into my personal space, I it makes me very uncomfortable, I will characterize it as '''disruptive editing and harassment''' that extends across multiple pages.

I have to ask, where does Misplaced Pages expect to find talented writers, if they are to be subjected to this kind of harassment while they are writing? '''Please look at the record and see how many times during this process I have asked ZayZayEM to not edit for a few hours or days, to allow people who actually do know the material to comment first before he makes changes and deletes things.''' Every time I offered him that solution of backing off for a few hours or days, he refused. Can you sense the intrusion I feel when I enter some new material, and then I am unable to make edits or add to it just a few mintues later because ZayZayEM is already there changing what I just wrote. He followed me from the original ] page onto three other related pages. I am particularly incensed at his lack of respect for those who know more than he does as authorities for how a page should be written or arranged. He deletes materials that he knows nothing about without looking at who created them, or what the Talk page says about them. If he wants a great encyclopedia product, he should have respect for those who actually write it, and address them on the Talk pages when he is not himself familiar with the material. --] 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:: '''I have entered proposal for a compromise on ]. If my proposal is accepted by ] and ] I will withdraw this request for arbitration, and we can consider this resolved. I have informed them.''' --] 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:: This is ]'s response: ] --] 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by ZayZayEM ====

Note:''There have been no intermediate steps prior to this RfA. Appropriate course is mediation.''

User:Metzenberg is being paranoid and reactionary. I came across ] from the main ] page. I was unaware this was a new article. I made a mistake and deleted material that was relevant to the page. I have renounced this action to user Metzenberg several times, and yet he still attempt to use it against me.

The articles in question covered a lot of similar material, read like essays and IMHO had questionable encyclopedic value. I made some immediate changes with regard to content I felt was totally unacceptable (such as deleting irrelevant images). Additionally attempted to rectify aesthetics and clarity to the pages by staggering images, and providing captions by using information in the article itself. User:Metzenberg reverted these changes. I reverted these change again (I thought, and still think, such changes needed to be made immediately) and provided reasons for the deletions of such material and started discussions on the talk page as to why such material (particularly irrelevant images and OR) should not be included in an article. User:Metzenberg immediately went on the offensive - attacking my validity as an editor, branding me a troll, a nuisance and had no business editing pages of topics that shouldn't be of any interest to me. I have tried to reason with User:Metz but he had consistently been offensive and alarmingly paranoid regarding my editing behaviour.

He has accused me of wikistalking, tampering with edit logs, abusing admin privelages, trolling and sockpuppetry yet has provided no basis for these attacks.

He has insulted my intelligence, motives, maturity and nationality several times.

In an attempt to garner support for his article (as mentioned) he has contacted 50 other editors. Only one has agreed with User:Metz' assessment of my behaviour. Almost all other replies (present on his talk page) have told him to calm down, and approach me reasonably, and many also agreed that some of my concern regarding POV, OR, relevance, undue weight and suitability of topics may actually be valid.

I admit that my behaviour regarding edit conflicts may have been overzealous. But User:Metz' immature, reactionary, and defamatory behaviour has been inexcusable.

Please alo see ] for my version of events.

For me this has gone well beyond content dispute. User:Metz' behaviour and wikiquette has been awful. He needs to recognise Misplaced Pages policies on editing, commenting, accusations, user privelages and rights, point of view, wikiality and more.

====Statement by ] (uninvolved observer)====
I found my way to the ] page after M. posted a request for input at the main ID page. I made a few edits, primarily to bring the statement about ID into agreement with the main ID page. ZZM reduced the section, which was a reasonable edit (there's no need to define ID at any length in the lead of this article, that's the point of hypertext). M. reverted the change (which in my opinion was a clear improvement to the article) with an edit summary saying ''ZayZayEM - I've asked you to leave the article alone for three days so others can comment. no more tampering please!'' He has since used similar edit summaries. He also, as ZZM said, asked a very large number of other editors for support.

M. seems to be uncomfortable with the idea of ZZM editing "his" articles. Edit summaries like ''thanks ZayZayEm for leaving things alone for now. I just did minor edits, links, and references'' and ''ZayZayEM, out of courtesy, since I have just authored a large section, would you leave my version alone while we are in the dispute resolution process?'', suggest to me that M. has a poor grasp of the whole idea of collaborative editing. I don't think that there is anything here that merits an arbcomm case. At this point in time, I believe that this can be solved by mediation of some sort.

:: I removed my question, "Why is there a statement by Guettarta here?" At the outset of the process, it appeared to me that only the two parties were supposed to make statements. I was not aware that other users and editors were allowed to make statements here. --] 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by Jmabel ====
I had suggested mediation to Metzenberg, assuming ZayZayEM is willing. Arbitration seems like a step too far, unless mediation is rejected.

Without wading too far in, here's how it looks to me: like any contributor, Metzenberg's work probably could do with some improvement, but I don't see any reason to think he's not basically headed the right way. You have to look pretty far to find Jews who have a problem with Darwinian evolution; those who do are nearly all Haredi Jews; and their objections still have generally not driven them particularly close to Christian creationists. And this is the picture painted by Metzenberg's work.

Given that ZayZayEM's main complaint against Metzenberg's edits seems to be that Metzenberg is doing synthesis that amounts to original research, someone else should have a look at this. My own guess is that the claim is not valid. Unless I'm mistaken, ZayZayEM's edits indicate that he did not even know that the Anti-Defamation League—certainly one of the half dozen most prominent Jewish organizations in the U.S.—is a Jewish organization. Clearly someone who is that uninformed about the topic is in no position to distinguish original research from stating the obvious, so some intervention by a knowledgable third party is called for. However, I think this is more an issue of content than conduct. - ] | ] 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Statement by Shirahadasha ====

I express no opinion on the merits of the underlying content disputes or the degree of knowledge of either party. My general impression was that while I didn't necessarily agree with ZayZayEM's edits or interpretation of policy, and I perceived that edits might have been done overhastily, that there was insufficient explanation or discussion with other editors, and some comments made might have been unduly critical, nonetheless the edits involved were generally at least arguably based on policy and directed at opportunities for improvement that could be seen as legitimate. I also find myself unable to tell whether these edits were a form of harassment directed at Metzenberg personally or were perhaps simply part of an ordinary heated edit dispute in the absence of ]. A conclusion on this issue didn't strike me as being completely clear from or compelled by the available evidence. Perhaps an attempt at civil discussion might help clarify the matter. Accordingly, I believe an attempt at mediation would be the better course here. --] 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
:(Note to filing party:) Any editor (administrator or not) is permitted to make a short statement on this page regarding whether the Arbitration Committee should accept the case. You may respond to such statements if you believe necessary, within the guideline of the overall length limitation, but the arbitrators generally prefer that you please do so in your own section rather than by threaded discussion as on other pages. Please modify accordingly. Thank you. ] 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ====
* Reject. Premature. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
*Decline without prejudice; please try other steps in ], such as ], first. ] <small>(])</small> 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
* Decline. I do not believe we can assist much in this matter. ] Co., ] 20:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
* Decline. Per above. ] ] 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
* Reject. ] 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
----


=== Nationalist === === Nationalist ===

Revision as of 15:25, 27 March 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 10 January 2025

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Betacommand

Initiated by AnonEMouse at 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by AnonEMouse

(Please forgive me if I crossed an i where I should have dotted a t, this is my first RFAR opening.) Betacommand (talk · contribs) is an administrator and expert coder of bots and tools. Unfortunately, he has a long history of controversial use of both bots and admin tools (the RFC above is related). I was only made aware of him in the last week, and in that time he has shown up three times on the WP:ANI board; they're enough for me to bring this RFAR.

  1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block
  2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#Betacommand AGAIN - this time.2C ext. link removals
  3. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Betacommand questionable blocking

The first incident, on March 21, had Betacommand apparently using a computerized tool from his own account to remove links to usenet groups across hundreds of articles, without discussion. His edit speeds have been estimated at 30 edits per minute. Many editors quickly showed up at his user talk page to complain; his responses were minimal, curt, or entirely lacking, and the deletion went on at high speeds. (See User talk:Betacommand/20070301#Removal of Usenet posts and the following 3 sections.) He stopped after I posted on his talk page emphasizing I was an admin and this was an official warning; I was ready to block him if he didn't stop to discuss, and made an "emergency" post on AN/I asking for review of the impending block. In the face of extensive later criticism, mostly on AN/I, he rolled back most or all of his edits. I was happy with that, thought that would be the end of it, and even thanked him for doing so the next day I edited. As part of the fallout, he apparently lost Bot approval rights: Misplaced Pages talk:Bots/Approvals group#Betacommand; Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Another bot deflagging

The second incident, on March 23, he again used a computer assisted tool, no longer at 30, but still at 5 to 15 edits per minute, removing other external links across unrelated articles, including to the official site of USAID, a US government agency, apparently based on a third party article about spam links in Google. He claimed on AN/I he was doing this without the aid of a bot. Given two similar incidents in three days, and the fact that removal of Bot rights didn't seem to help, several people discussed a community ban. Instead, I made a proposal that he roll back his controversial edits, and promise not to go on any mass deletion sprees without discussion beforehand, or approval by another experienced editor. He rolled back his edits, but did not agree to the last condition. He also did not apologize, accept that his actions were wrong, or promise not to repeat them, stating merely that he was debugging his tool.

The third incident is today, March 26. He has apparently blocked a user for participation in a content dispute. After mass criticism on AN/I by many admins, he unblocked the user, without admitting that he was wrong. That same page, today, uncovered issues with apparently automated blocking users for username violations. User:Mel Etitis apparently blocked Betacommand for this, or a combination of these actions.

AN/I consensus seems to be that these recurring issues demand further action, and that Betacommand has lost the community's trust as an admin. If the community noticeboard could take intermediate steps besides outright ban, I'd take it there. As far as I understand, it can't. Apparently stewards won't desysop someone without an arbcom ruling either. Betacommand is a well-meaning user, and a skilled bot developer, who has the community effect of a porcupine in a nudist colony. Hopefully some kind of intermediate action besides outright ban will be enough to de-quill him. --AnonEMouse 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to ChrisO

I'm actually not that interested in considering the incidents separately; separately they're each, not good, but everyone makes mistakes. I'm concerned with a long history of disregard for other users (see above and below). I'm concerned with 3 major (look at the people involved in each!) AN/I incidents in 6 days, without a single "I understand", "I was wrong", or "I won't do it again". I'm not interested in punishing him for what he did, that can be fixed, or has been fixed. I'm concerned with preventing the next one. --AnonEMouse 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved badlydrawnjeff

AnonEMouse (talk · contribs)'s synopsis was very articulate, and I second the need for further action. I have not had much, if any, interaction with Betacommand, but felt compelled to consider compiling evidence for ArbCom for a case following the blocking issue this morning. In the time it took me to think about it, it only appeared to get worse.

There's a point where the community has to stop being forgiving of the same dangerous transgressions. If this was one or two isolated incidents, I wouldn't care much more than keeping a close eye. But at a certain point, we have to say enough is enough. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Followup by ElC


On the contrary: on the face of it, a simple error involving mistaken dates (corrected 15 minutes later). El_C 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked ~10 users in one minute before. It merely involves having multiple windows/tabs open and then executing the blocks in succession. El_C 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How many of the 10 were yourself, though? Bishonen | talk 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Heh, yeah, exactly. El_C 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Still, it appears there is a pattern of improper blocks; or at least a strong likelihood. El_C 20:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mel Etitis

Ah, history slipping in here a little. I suggest that you look at the facts of the matter, including my message at WP:AN/I in which I explained the mistake behind my block, and asked if people thought that I should unblock. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this RfArb, I can only add that, like many editors, I've watched a series of problems arise because of Betacommand's inappropriate use of bots and now blocks, and it seems to a large proportion of the many admins and other editors commenting on him at WP:AN/I that it's inappropriate that he should continue to be trusted with admin tools. It may be that he simply needs more experience before being allowed them, it may be that he's temperamentally unsuited — I don't know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Chrislk02

Here is a recent timeline of suspicious, controversial and possible innapropriate actions by betacommand many that I have been involved with, witnessed and or confronted betacommand about.

  • 27 Nov 2006 - , and following logs. Started deleting images upwards of 20 per minute for a time period deleting updwards of 500 images over a short period of time.
  • 28 Nov 2006 - betacommand is blocked and then unblocked for running an unauthorized deletion bot. The unblock comment states, "(I don't think he is going to do that again) "
  • 18 Feb 2007 - HighinBC expresses concerns of Betacommands bolcking habits.
  • 20 Feb 2007 - an administror expresses concerns of betacommands blocking and denying of unblock requests in relation to a usernameblock
  • 22 Feb 2007 - in his contribs where he pretty much started auto reporting all usernames that had been blocked before to WP:RFCN in what was believed to be to make a point. This was mentioned at WP:ANI and on his talk page
  • 22 Feb 2007 - comment I left regarding bad usernames. Situation where betacommand made a point, only sees things in black and white.
  • 22 Feb 2007 - a thread where I expressed my concerns over blocking habits, point violations and other concerns I have had.
  • 23 Feb 2007 me expressing concerns in regards to the probably use of a blocking bot by beta command.
  • 8 Mar 2007 - A series of 9 blocks in 1 minute, very improabbly all were done manual with proper review.
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.13.50 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "202.58.63.200 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming)
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.109.49.47 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "59.167.243.12 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "121.44.236.252 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "210.11.241.21 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Tuddy (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Voyages (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming) 
*: 14:43, 8 March 2007 Betacommand (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Svm-en (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (spamming)
  • 21 Mar 2007 00:01 - 17:34 , , , , , , a series of 3,000 external link removals at bot like speeds with many more per hour than humanly possible at times.
  • 21 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding link deletion at bot like speeds.
  • 23 Mar 2007 13:16 - 17:37 -Fairly rapid remval of abou 200 (appprox) external links in a similar manner as objeted to on the previous ani post. This action stopped when he was warned of a block again.
  • 23 Mar 2007 - ANI posting regarding external link removal.
  • 26 Mar 207 - most recent ANI posting regarding innapropriate block of a user editing an article he was engaged in.

I think all of these actions, plus several other pas actions which I have not summarized here (his block log includes 3 blocks for unatuirhorized bots). There are also several other username blocks that many users have expressed concern over. usernames such as user:Chrisgodwin was blocked. It was later unblocked with a WP:RFCN, however it opens the question what led him to block. Having God in the name will often lead to a block but godwin is an appropriate name. There are many other blocks that were questionable. After every occasion, betacommand has generally re-started the questionable behavior until threatneed with a block again. I have asked him nicley what is going on before and got a nice answer however the actions did not stop. I belive that any administrator willing to block without personal review or just block a name because it contains the substring of a possible offensive term is more of a detrmiment to this project than any innapropriate name that spends an extra 20 minutes around because it is blocked manually. 1 instance would be ok, 2 instances would be ok. There are multiple instance where this editor/administrator has abused there power and I have serious concerns about what will hapen in the future. Other things that will hurt this project is automated removal of content, and testing bots/script debugging on live articles. This may have been addressed but his willingngess to use the project as a sandbox for his development is also innparopriate. If even a fraction of the over 3,000 link removals were eroneous or left mistakes, it would take a significant amount of time to go behing and clean it up. And, in fact, many of those edits were erroneous and his talk page at one time had 10+ complaints regarding these actions. The next day, the actions started again. I have never once heard him admit that what he was doing is wrong, however justified it every time. I think it is important, especially for an administrator, to admit when they may have made a mistake. I do not think there is anything preventing betacommand from developing a a new script that will leave a wake of disaster and forcing the rest of the project to cleanup the mess. There are certain sites that should be removed, blind removal by a poorly developed tool at bot like speeds is innapropriate. There is a reason there is a bot approval process.

In summary, betacommand has shown repeated abuse of administrator tools over a period of time including blocking and deleting as well as abuse of Bot policies. If it were n isolated incident, i would be more likley to drop it but these incidents have occured over time which leads me to believe that betacommand should not be entrusted with the administrators tools.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As a further clarification, i respect Betacommands contributions to this community. I have no vendetta against him and would actually not like to see him immediatly de-sysopped. My concerns posted here are only for what I feel are actions that have and, should similar actions be repeated, permanently damage this community. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chrislk02's response to Nick

I at no point claimed that the username blocks by betacommand were current, merely having occured since the originial WP:RFCN had been opened. My orignial ANI posting may have been poorly worded, but I later clarified it. And, actually after realizing that Mel's block of betacommand was possibly due to my poor communication, I contacted mel and attemplted to clarify myself and expressed concerns that I felt the block was innapropriate and that betacomamnd should be unblocked. Any users that I unblocked , , , and , I gave several hours for comment by the community and closed only the ones with a clear consensus to allow. I did not unblock any users without requesting the communitys input, and only proceeded when I was sure that the community wanted said users unblocked. My concerns of acting without community consensus are the reason for my ANI posting, and I was actually told that I should just unblock them if I felt it innpropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

It seems to me that there are three, quite separate, issues here which should be considered on their own merits:

  1. The running of an unauthorised bot to remove external links. I freely admit to knowing very little about this, as I know next to nothing about the technical side of Misplaced Pages editing, but it evidently caused some disruption and bad feeling. I make no judgement as to whether the ArbCom should scrutinise this issue but it seems to me that it could be beneficial to have some guidance from the Committee on the role of bot developers.
  2. The blocking of a user involved in a tag-team edit war, following a request for intervention on AN/I. The intervention was requested, Betacommand's action was documented and the user was warned by Betacommand not to edit war but chose to ignore the warning, hence the block. This seems to me to be a reasonable application of WP:3RR's statement that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (italics in original). I don't believe there is a substantive issue on this point at least, since it's a principle which the Committee has already endorsed.
  3. The rapid unrequested blocking of a number of other users, as documented by Chrislk02. Again I make no judgement as to whether this was inappropriate, though I think ElC's explanation above is very plausible - certainly I've carried out speedy deletions at "bot-like speeds" using Firefox's tabbed browsing feature (having reviewed the articles first, of course). I think this is something that could indicate abuse but doesn't automatically indicate it. I don't see unambiguous evidence in Chris's history of bot use to carry out mass blocking, though I'm absolutely not ruling out the possibility that such evidence exists.

I hope this helps to focus the discussion on the matter. -- ChrisO 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Nick

External Links are a total fuck up on Misplaced Pages, if you think removing a few thousand in one go is some freakish, monsterous action, it's not. We've got 8,000 links being added every single day in the mainspace alone (we don't have the CPU and bandwidth to look through user and article talk space for spamming).

Removal isn't this stab in the dark process Chrilk02 makes it out to be, there are a number of users who make use of tools provided by Eagle_101, Beetstra, Shadow1, me and Betacommand himself to target spammers operating on English Misplaced Pages, on other Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia sites. There are going to be a lot more blocked accounts and IP addresses with just 1 or 2 spamming edits because we now know they are doing the same on 50+ Wikimedia sites and unless people start looking at this information, they're going to be making uneducated decisions when it comes to unblocking users and condemning other administrators actions.

Even with all these wonderful tools, there's just no way to go through all these external links (especially those added already) and it's necessary to start mass deletions from time to time. Jimbo has even decided some sites need to be blacklisted. Betacommand isn't misusing his tools intentionally, if he's even misusing his tools at all, it's through sheer enthusiasm. -- Nick 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also come to my attention that Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, listed various usernames previously blocked by Betacommand over at WP:RFCN, invited commentary (including himself and frequently Met Etitis) before proceeding to close these RFCN requests a few hours later, permitting the usernames and unblocking the accounts. Personally, I think Chris should have recused himself from even listing the usernames given his past history (self admitted on his userpage) with Betacommand, and should certainly have not resorted to both listing usernames, commenting on his belief of the inappropriateness of username block, closing the RFCN and then unblocking the user, and I think this is just as alarming a breach of administrator judgement as anything I've seen here today from Betacommand. I certainly think there's something more alarming going on here and the behaviour of Chris (especially), Mel and others is certainly well below that which I would expect from fellow administrators, I've had to raise an objection with Chris already today over this issue where he failed to comment on WP:ANI that he was not discussing a current, ongoing issue (this, I believe lead to the totally out of process block by Mel today) and personally, I've precious little faith left in them at this time, Chris especially, but also in Mel, as in addition to Betacommand, we've got Chris running around either inadvertently or deliberately misleading the community, improperly running RFCN and we've got Mel going around blocking a fellow admin without bothering to look into his contributions or recent activity log to confirm what is being said on WP:ANI is correct and hasn't been tampered with. -- Nick 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Betacommand

Ok in regard to username blocks I have almost completely stopped issuing those, and with hindsight I should not have blocked as many borderline users as I did. In the rare cases where I do issue them now they are for obvious reasons. Removing mass external links was inappropriate and should not have happened, as I said on the ANI post I shall seek consensus before removing any external links in the future. The bot operator issue as been solved, the scope and exact task are being reviewed by WP:BAG. And to make a clarification I have never abused my bot account User:BetacommandBot.

In regard to the Pallywood issue I made a mistake. I attempted to stop what I thought was an edit war over a {{notability}} tag. Not thinking that protecting the page made since the whole conflict was over a template, I added the template back (I assumed in good faith that the tag was valid) and left a note on the talk page warning the involved parties that they needed to solve the issue on the talk page and not revert war about the tag. Since I did not protect the page, (I hoped valid edits could continue) on the talk page I left a note saying that continued revert warring would get the person blocked. Less than 24 hours later a user removes the template. Seeing this as a continuation of the edit conflict I blocked the user in question for 24 hours. I was attempting to contain the revert war and promote discussion. I see now that how I handled the issue was a mistake. I should have left the page the way I found it and full protected it and filed a RFC on the issue. I have not looked too deep into this dispute. On Hindsight I should have done a more through examination of the issue before acting. I attempted to step in a stop the edit war without enough information. That was a mistake and I don’t plan on that happening again. I am sorry for how I handled the issue, and should have been more careful of my actions. As what appeared to happen here was that I was using admin tools in an edit dispute. That was not my intent, and I shall be very careful in the future to avoid the appearance of admin tool abuse, and I shall be very careful in the future to avoid similar problems again. Betacommand 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Betacommand has performed "ordinary", not bot-related, bad blocks, which haven't been mentioned so far, at least I can't find them above. The worst example I know of is his block of Irpen in December 2006, which was very widely criticized by the community. A misuse of the block button which ignored every rule in the book and put an unjustified smear in the block log of a hardworking content contributor. See these links to discussions on ANI and on Betacommand's talkpage:

Statement by user:Irpen

While I strongly considered that the conduct of this user needs to be addressed by an ArbCom, I was never able to overcome my natural unwillingness to initiate and participate in another unpleasant process. But since this case is already in the works, I think I should add to it. From what I have observed, Betacommand has been continuously showing a highly unbecoming attitude towards other users. I will only mention three instances.

On December 22, 2006 Betacommand was one of several users who organized (over IRC) the now infamous block of Giano, that very block that triggered the whole IRC controversy that the current arbitrators remember well. What was truly behind this block was an IRC conversation, whose log the ArbCom members have seen, and hopefully remember. To remind, this is about:

<Betacommand> I need to issue a npa warning to an editor but I am Involved in a dispute with said user
...
<Chairboy> Remember, he's a wikilawyer, you need to get a clean kill...

This IRC organized block was discussed all around and is remembered well enough to elaborate further. But there is more to it.

This event took place, on the very next day after Betacommand blocked Irpen (myself) for 48 hours maliciously claiming an NPA policy out of thin air. The block was instituted not only without warning but without even notification in the hit and run manner. The outcry of both these blocks was huge. Some threads related to this can be found here, here and here. Betacommand was approached several times about the blocks of Irpen and Giano but Betacoomand refused to answer and in response to this inquiry Betacomand simply "archived" both threads at his talk related to the matter , . What makes these blocks especially appalling is the rock-solid evidence of their being set up by Betacommand (and some others) behind the curtain.

Also, on February 26, 2007, Betacommand blocked for no reason users Hillock65 (talk · contribs) and Chuprynka (talk · contribs) (both were unblocked, discussion here) demonstrating one more time a highly dismissive attitude to the seriousness of the issue of blocking established editors.

After all the criticism of his past blocks, I hoped that Betacommand learned something about the danger of careless use of the block button and I could not believe my eyes when I saw one more Betacommand block thread at ANI today.

His blocks were discussed (and overturned) so many times at WP:ANI that I thought he should have drawn some conclusions. Apparently he did not and I think it is time for ArbCom to step in on Betacommand's conduct. --Irpen 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev

Betacommand repeatedly did two things that should be a no-no for an admin:

  • He run an automatic script that used an admin account (admin-bot) and had not gone through the WP:RFA process. This is potentially damaging for the project if the bot malfunctions. Additionally the admin account was his own. Thus, the other admins were reluctant to block it and the damage was larger than if the account was a designated bot.
  • He blocked established productive users in haste, without a proper decorum, with insufficient effort to solve the problem without blocking and without proper accounting for the blocks.

Since both violations were done repeatedly I think it is an arbcom matter Alex Bakharev 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Kelly Martin

There is no need for this arbitration case; it is a witchhunt, plain and simple. Betacommand has already acknowledged his most recent error, and his other offenses are all old news being dragged up for the sole purpose of creating additional drama. There is no need for sanctions; he clearly understands his mistake and is very unlikely to repeat it. If anyone needs sanctioning here, it is the people above who are beating up Betacommand while he's down (and, perhaps, the people responsible for making articles about Middle Eastern topics such a minefield, but I doubt this ArbCom has either the fortitude or the wisdom to do that effectively). Kelly Martin (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by entirely uninvolved user Doc

No view on most of this, but please don't let's go over a block from December. We've been there, done that. Vendettas are unsightly.--Doc 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Chacor

This comment is in response to Kelly above:

He also admitted and acknowledged his prior mistakes. And still committed them again. I think an ArbCom case had been in the works. Betacommand knew about his behaviour, he has an RFC open, and yet continued to make controversial blockings and edits, arguably (depends who you believe) with a bot. I support this request. – Chacor 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gandoman

The concerns that have been raised at WP:ANI about Betacommand have been in relation to different actions: deletion of images, deletion of external links, blocking of inappropriate usernames and other blocks. However, I believe that the underlying issue has been the same in each case: that Betacommand has been performing controversial editorial and administrative actions without discussing them first, often very quickly and in large numbers. When questioned about this afterwards, he often gives very terse and inadequate explanations , and refuses to stop these actions even if several uninvolved users ask him to do so.

Also, an issue that has not been covered in the above summaries is the use of edit summaries. Betacommand seems to use generic edit summaries that are the same in each case. For example, all his external link removals had an edit summary of "removing inappropriate link per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NOT", even if all of these policies were not applicable in all of the cases. When blocking users for inappropriate usernames, the block reason was "Please read our username policy and choose another username", leaving no explanation as to what exactly was wrong with the username. The result of this is that other editors are left guessing and might choose to revert what looks like an unjustified deletion or block, leading to conflicts that could have been avoided if the specific reasoning for each action had been provided. Betacommand has been asked to provide more specific reasoning earlier . It would be much easier if Betacommand used block/edit summaries that are tailored to each specific case, instead of a generic stock phrase. Gandoman 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Refactored a bit. This really shouldn't be a conversation. Thatcher131 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Four votes to open the case. Per policy, case will open 24 hours from now, unless requested to open sooner by the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)


Nationalist

Initiated by Vic226 at 09:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Jerrypp772000 has received the notification ().
  • Nationalist has received the notification, both as his main account () and as his latest active sockpuppet ().
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Third opinion: Talk:Guantian, Tainan, in which the discussion contains my (, ) and BlueShirts' opnion (). Failed because Nationalist continued editing with no consensus reached in the discussion.
  • Mediation: failed because Nationalist chose not to respond even after he was notified about the mediation.
  • RFC case: initiated at 00:46 (UTC) in February 4, 2007, this case is failing to progress at any point since 1) none of the Desired outcome has reached at this point; and 2) Nationalist barely participated in discussion for consensus, both in RFC and in other article talk pages.

Statement by Vic226

Preface

I was not involved until he made this edit on Chien-Ming Wang (which was subsequently reverted by user Yankees76 before the dispute went ugly). Before that, he already had a record of disputes with others and a 3RR violation block. After over three months of unhealthy edit warring concerning this issue, I feel that the RFC case will never reach to the point of closing with any solution and will continue to be "premature" if that is how the ArbCom coins it. Despite my concern, I strongly feel that Arbitration is the last and the only option left.

Blocks (see also here)

His disruptive behavior and attitudes toward other editors have constantly escalated to the point of making himself blocked:

  1. 1st 3RR violation
  2. 2nd 3RR violation, although the block was more because of profanity in edit summary. Quotation: "Gave that guy a {{non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to fuck off. Tuxide 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"
  3. 3rd block for personal attack: see next section below.
  4. 3rd 3RR violation and 4th block, this time attempted to use sockpuppet User:Taiwanlove to circumvent 3RR violation. Also see RfCU result and discussion of it.
  5. 5th block for the reason stated in the diff link. So far this block has only been renewed repeatedly for his multiple abuse of sockpuppet.
Assuming bad faith/personal attacks

Among his edits, Nationalist has also included multiple attacks mostly against Jerrypp772000 : (in edit summary) (in edit summary) (Both warnings contain the diff link of assuming bad faith/personal attack) worsening attack Personal attack using sock .

Most recently (under confirmed sock Alex678), he has created a false perception of Jerrypp772000 without apparent proof ( (see summary)), falsely accusing Jerrypp772000's actions as "vandalism" ( (Jerry is out to de-Republic of China-ize) (Stop de-Republic of China-ize) ), and threatening to get Jerrypp772000 banned for reverting his edits (stop vandalizing my page are u will be banned Stop vandalizing Jerry or else you will be blocked. Everyone is tired of your POV).

Incivility

His overall contributions, when matched with comments from other editors, displays his incivility and unwillingness to resolve the dispute peacefully for a consensus:

  1. "Follow conventions and dont try to game the system" (This is also his latest edit on a Misplaced Pages article after I have urged him to stop and discuss for a consensus in his talk page. The very next thing he did with his own talk page was simply blanking it.)
  2. "Follow conventions or I will file an RFC against you"
  3. ArbCom ruled it that restoring a talk page blanked by the owner is harassment... but this, to me, is going too far, as it is considered extremely rude to edit others comment, let alone posting (absurd) threats and barring any comment to be made in his talk page.
  4. Another message similar to #2: "You confuse people with your edits. Stop it. The consensus does not support you. Stop before I file an RFC against you."

His behavior also displays no regret for what others deemed his contributions as disruptive after being blocked for several times (His request to unblock refuses to recognize his wrongdoing and puts the blame falsely to other people).

Selective dismissal of other inputs

This is one of the issues I'm concerned the most. He has for more than once selectively ignored others' opinions/arguments and comment no further about them. One example is the following conversation between User:Borgarde and him: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th (See talk page for my question of it) 5th... and the conversation ends abruptly without Nationalist's next response other than blanking his own talk page. Also, it is observed that he singles out only the details he can make more arguments/bad faith/attacks of, as shown in this 3-diff link. In the diff link, I have also urged him not to ignore my last response, but in vain; the discussion was deserted even after User:BlueShirts expressed his opinion as a third person . Instead, he continues to edit war against Jerrypp772000 over Taiwan-related articles.

Summary and desired outcome

Nationalist has been getting into edit conflicts constantly with other editors, especially with Jerrypp772000, over Taiwan-related articles. Despite his being blocked five times for a hefty amount of expiry time, he continued to create more sockpuppets to evade blocks and continue edit warring without even a peaceful discussion. When he does try to discuss, his statements often contain personal attacks and a few times to the degree of profanity. None of those discussions were ended with a consensus, since after some time he chose to continue edit warring instead of reaching for a consensus through discussion.

This issue is far beyond a simple content issue as stated by administrator Loren36 in RFC . So far, I fail to see any improvement from him in this vicious cycle; new sockpuppets, same attitude and behavior. This is no longer a case that can be stopped simply by admininstrator blocking. Therefore, all I could see for the outcome is either a parole or a community ban.

Statement by PullToOpen

I'm not involved in this dispute per se, but I have been somewhat involved at WP:RFCU, where I have seen several checkuser requests pertaining to Nationalist. Nationalist is an unrepentant sockpuppeteer, who has been warned several times to stop but will not (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist) for more information). Along with Nationalist's near constant conflicts with other users, he also keeps trying to push his own specific POV (his userspace makes this clear - he has a long message on his user page about China, e.g. 中華民國萬萬歲!, which means "Long Live the Republic of China!"). I urge ArbCom to accept this, and I call for the same outcome outlined by Vic226. PTO 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jerrypp772000

As one of the involved parties, I call for the same outcome outlined by Vic. I do not know why it is so hard for Nationalist to get what we are trying to tell him. I saw this recently. In that diff, we can see that Nationalist is a user supporting the ROC living in Taiwan. He also hates people who support Taiwan independence. And later I saw this. We can tell that Nationalist views Taiwan independence as an evil POV.

We can see that he is a strong supporter of CKS and the ROC here. And he would create as many sock puppets as he wishes just to revert my edits, which he thinks are biased.

I actually had no problem with his hatred of Taiwanese independence, what I disliked was his lack of interest to discuss with other users and possibly the personal attacks.--Jerrypp772000 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
  • 02:41, 12 March 2007 Loren36 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Repeated evasion of block with sockpuppets.)
    Because of this, any sockpuppets of Nationalist can be blocked on sight once confirmed at WP:RFCU. No arbitration should be necessary. - Penwhale | 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    17:27, 22 March 2007 FloNight (Talk | contribs) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 months (increase block for evading block with socks), established at WP:RFCU. This RfAr should be moot now. - Penwhale | 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)

Richard Walter

Initiated by Buzzle45 at 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

All further statements in this case should be made directly to the Arbitration Committee by email. E-mail may be addressed to any active arbitrator for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee mailing list.

Notice of emailed statement by Daniel.Bryant

As a note to ensure all correspondance is recieved correctly on the Arbitration mailing list, I am posting here to notify you that I have sent an email regarding this case; namely, a notification about a very recent OTRS ticket which is tightly associated with this dispute. If my email didn't make it to arbcom-l, can someone please tell me so on my talk page, so I can resend. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
If this case is accepted, I assume that it will be discussed privately? - Penwhale | 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

  • As far as I can see, this concerns edits at Richard Walter only since 17 March. This timescale means that the case is not for the ArbCom. Allegations of libel are, however, taken extremely seriously. The Richard Walter page is currently protected; specifics of alleged libel up there can be communicated privately to me or any Arbitrator by email through our User pages, and will be looked into urgently. Charles Matthews 22:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request to reopen Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive to comical . After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page .
More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" .
I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Misplaced Pages capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Misplaced Pages want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input?
I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

In response to a request at my user talk page I performed an investigation on two IP addresses that have been active at the Jonathan Sarfati biography, which is one of the articles from which Agapetos angel has been indefinitely banned. At User_talk:Durova#AA_meeting Otheus, who appears to have acted in good faith, petitioned me to investigate the possibility that 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122, both of which have been blocked or warned per this arbitration case, are not the same person as Agapetos angel. Otheus presented evidence both onsite and via e-mail in support of that possibility.

Upon investigation, I conclude that these two IPs are almost certainly the same person, unlikely to be Agapetos angel, and very possibly Mr. Sarfati himself. My evidence is summarized with a fair number of diffs in the thread and I can provide more upon request. Does the original ruling cover this situation? Please advise. Durova 06:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Categories: