Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits

Betacommand is making automated edits
If you recall, Betacommand has promised not to undertake a pattern of edits across more than 25 pages, to manually and carefully review each edit he makes, and to be civil. See the community-imposed restrictions that he agreed to in August.

When a couple other users and I brought up on his talk page his recent run of 80 or so image removals, the response followed the typical pattern, which I paraphrase here (the link goes to his last edit in the discussion):
 * The restrictions don't matter because I'm following policy.
 * Reminding me of these restrictions is harassment.
 * You can't stop me because I'm following policy.
 * I'm not making automated edits.
 * You can't prove that I'm making automated edits.
 * You're trolling. I dare you to take this to ArbCom. Discussion closed.

Despite Beta constantly returning to "they're not automated" and "I'm not breaking policy", these are not the point. The decision was worded so that we would no longer have to take Betacommand at his word that he wasn't using an automated tool, because in the past he has claimed not to be using automated tools when he actually was. This is why the decision just refers to "a pattern of edits".

Can I get one of those mythical uninvolved admins to weigh in? rspεεr (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yet more harassment for enforcing policy. Please note that I never dare you to take this to ArbCom βcommand 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You said "either block me for enforcing policy, so I can take you to arbcom and make a fool of you..." I guess technically you dared me to block you, but that's semantics. rspεεr (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So what's an admin gonna do? Another little 24 hour slap on the wrist? By now, Betacommand should be community banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. *sigh* - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yet more trolling and personal attacks. sigh βcommand 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't these supposed to be escalating blocks? or was that tossed out as too harsh?--Crossmr (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One would think so. The silliest part of the agreement is the principle that blocks should be placed by an "uninvolved admin", taken to mean an admin who for some reason has managed to not weigh in on this whole saga before but decides to show up out of nowhere to place the block. These admins tend to be unaware of Betacommand's history and even his previous blocks. So for automated editing, he's been blocked for 72, 24, and 24 hours in that order. For incivility, he's been blocked for 1 week, 31 hours, and 48 hours. For edit warring about NFCC (which he's still doing), he's been blocked for 72, 48, and 31 hours in that order. I hope that the uninvolved admin this time is someone who has paid some attention to this issue, and will look at his block log and figure out which direction "escalating" is supposed to go in. rspεεr (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been far too many rounds of this. Betacommand makes controversial edits at high speed, reacts with hostility to any communication about them, and re-interprets or simply ignores restrictions previously agreed to. I endorse blocking until there is a fundamental change to this pattern. Jonathunder (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the edits in this situation are 110% within policy. have a problem with that change the policy. these image removals cannot be disputed. βcommand 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your incivility and snottyness can be disputed however and are certainly against policy. Always has been. But hey, you're Betacommand, so carry on... - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 05:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Last I checked you are not bound just by normal policies but also the editing restrictions you agreed to. The mob calling for your head last time around was only sated because you agreed to those restrictions. Failing to abide by them and thinking you're above them isn't going to help your case.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Allstar, could you please tone down your language. We need to be a little bit more neutral than what you have put forth so far. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the rub: the edits that it looks like Beta's being accused of being automated are completely within WP:NFCC policy - the images that he is removing from pages are lacking fair-use rationales for those pages. This is a non-negotiable aspect (per Foundation resolution), so unlike what he would previously have been blocked for, these image removals have to be done to comply with the Foundation.  Should we be punishing him for keeping the Foundation's resolution in line without a doubt?  --MASEM  05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits aren't being done within policy because he's violating a restriction set on him for the same reason (overzealous NFCC application). Beta is, in effect, being an image vigilante. NFCC doesn't award people special restriction-violation badges. There are plenty of people willing to do this instead of him. Every editor, even the ArbCom, even Blofeld, is expendable, unfortunately. Sceptre (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Expendable? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 5:30am. I'm tired. Forgot about the word "replaceable". Sceptre (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Doesn't really matter if they're within policy. Among other things, your restrictions include:
 * Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.
 * There is no notation there about 'unless they're within policy.' It is a brightline limit: you may not make more than 25 repetitive edits without gaining consensus for those specific edits at WP:VPR. No exceptions are listed. Betacommand, by my reading of the situation, narrowly evaded a ban or a total prohibition on repetitive/automated edits by agreeing to certain restrictions. He can't then state that the restrictions don't exist. They do, he agreed to them, he needs to abide by them until he has regained the trust of the community. // roux    05:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your same rules I cannot make more than 25 anti-vandalism reverts without going to the VP for consensus. that is ludicrous. I will enforce policy. the edits themselves are not in question you can either stop harassing me or Ill file an arbcom to end this bullshit. Im getting sick of the constant harassment. βcommand 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No-one would complain were you reverting vandalism. The point is, this is the same behaviour you were sanctioned for: overzealous application of the NFCC. Sceptre (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not overzealous, read the NFCC, what Im doing is non-debatable all images must have a rationale. dont like that change the policy dont harass me for enforcing it. βcommand 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta, stop saying "harass" like that. It equates the shit Amorrow pulled to "waah, the big boy stole my toys!". Sceptre (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amorrow? That was a bit much, don't you think? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, heavens no. I know exactly what kind of shit he pulled. And I really hate it when people accuse others of "harassment" and "stalking" when all that's happened is that the person accused just pointed out something the accuser doesn't like. Sceptre (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ecx100000)Yes. Betacommand is not the sole defender of all that is good and right with images on wikipedia. If there are problems other editors will address it. Or he can slow down and address it within his editing restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The restriction is very clear: Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. This would be any pattern, such as edits which follow policy and need to be done, which indeed fall under this restriction. Hence, the edits are blockable. Although I can't bring myself to block an editor for following image policy in such a straightforward and clean way (images without fair use rationales should be deleted), I would ask Betacommand to abide by the restriction, take this thread as a warning and not do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, 10c compliance is bot work. And Beta knows it; it was one of his bot's tasks. I think there's an pinch of helping, a pinch of disruption, and a whole jar of stubbornness here. And believe me; I should know. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * there are no bots cleaning up images that are partially within 10c. bots only flag them if they completely fail. βcommand 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * May I offer a...


 * For the record, I have never been a fan of Betacommand's rudeness or refusal to abide by simple rules of civility, and have been a vocal proponent that such violations cannot be placated by his supposed "value" to the project; and that he should not be given a free pass on such incivility. No one could accuse me of being in his camp.  That being said, lay the fuck off of him.  Good gawd people.  There is nothing that he is currently doing which is disruptive to the project; its like people are following him around just waiting for him cross some magic line "Oh look, between 1:07 and 1:09 he made 12 edits, so he must be stopped NOW!"  He's doing nothing at all disruptive; he's not trying to circumvent or alter policy, and his exact actions, if done by any person NOT named Betacommand, wouldn't even be noticed.  He doesn't seem to have toned down his rudeness any, but really, when you poke the bear with a stick, he's gonna take a swat at you.  Seriously, this is nothing by teh DRAHMAZ for teh DRAHMAZ sake.  Let's leave him alone, and lets try NOT following his every move and waiting for him to cross some arbitrary line so we can start a thread titled "ZOMG BANXOR HIM NOW !!1one!!1!"... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Except in this case he's apparently been recently blocked for this very kind of behaviour and the images in question have to do with an open RfC.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A warning? Have any of those proven fruitful in the past?--Crossmr (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh...have blocks? I'm uninvolved, I can't bring myself to hit the block button and subject myself to becoming an "involved party" in this. --Smashvilletalk 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Short blocks..no...--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any block will prevent any disruption to the project. Please consider that before anyone use the button. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The pith is, I don't see any disruption in the edits. Perhaps I do see an editor nudging up against an editing restriction in a harmless way to see what would happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The disruption is caused by his continual disrespect of the other members of this project. Yes, his edits are within policy, but they were made in a way that the community said he shouldn't make them. His inability to do that is the same as thumbing his nose at the community.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel disrespected, as a member of this community. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a member of this community I do feel disrespected. So there you go.--Crossmr (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have any of Beta's edits since his December 10th block been automated? I mean seriously, given the amount and time frame...he could've easily used tabs and then saved the pages once he was done. Did he admit to this somewhere?--Toffile (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand never fully admits to making automated edits, but this is the closest he has come recently. Apparently he doesn't consider it automated if it's written in JavaScript. However, I would not even take that much at face value. In this edit the edit summary ends with "using", as if it were going to be followed by the name of the external program he was using, but he was trying to suppress it. rspεεr (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. I'm not quite sure if it really breaks it though. The automated restriction was originally suggested so that he wouldn't be running a bot, or close to a bot and to be forced to manually review the edits. Doing a search and replace is as easy to do as opening up a text editor and using the built-in functionality. Even if it was a JS replace, it still doesn't appear that it was automated as the particular time window is still well within human ability. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm mincing words, I just don't quite think that it really breaks the spirit of what was being proposed.--Toffile (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually have that built into my wikipedia user interface if anyone ever bothered to look. βcommand 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, he could have been using his monobook.js and then manually reviewing everything it did, like the restriction says. Or he could not have been. The fact that we have no way to tell is why the restriction had a bright line instead, which is "any pattern of edits across 25 or more pages". rspεεr (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So your section title is at the very least misleading.--Toffile (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to say that he wasn't technically violating sanctions (he was as they don't have an expiry time period for the 25), but that the title declares something that you've admitted that there isn't clear evidence for.--Toffile (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want, a covert screen capture from Betacommand's computer? We could never have any concrete evidence one way or another about whether he's manually reviewing his edits, but the fact that he's using JavaScript (and possibly more) to make the same edit across 80 or so pages passes the duck test to me. rspεεr (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you actually every tested my monobook.js? no so please stop ABF and putting your foot in your mouth. βcommand 07:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. monobook.js isn't the special safe thing that you're allowed to use to edit like a bot. There's a bright line: a pattern of edits across 25 pages, and we don't have to speculate any more about how exactly you made the edits. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I much prefer a Occam's Razor myself. My problem is that you've admitted to not having evidence for an accusation that carries a bit more weight. Beta was basically told never to bots again which is why the restrictions are there. He would be violating both the letter and the spirit of the restrictions. However there is a fairly good chance that he's not running a bot, and isn't breaking the spirit. The former would really deserve a harsher punishment than the latter in my view. Also to be honest, there is a distinction between actually performing automated edits and running into the limit...the restrictions in play don't say it's a criteria for what makes automated edits, only something to prevent them. Now if you think I'm mincing words, fine. I just don't feel like the topic title gives an accurate picture of what actually occurred. Anyway, I can't continue to argue, I need to retire to sleep.--Toffile (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually he was told not to make edits which appear bot-like. Which is why he's limited to X edits per minute and he was asked to propose the edits. It doesn't matter whether or not he uses a bot or he uses a script or anything else. The appearance of the edits is what counts, not how he really did them.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, I talked to Beta on IRC the other week, and from what we discussed I established that he believed that he was exempt from his restrictions simply because apparently policies transcend user-level restrictions, which I believe not to be the case. I believe if someone who has the correct authority clarifies this to him, this may be rectified. &mdash; neuro (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
The restrictions are not effective to serve a purpose of preventing disruption. I propose the community imposed restriction here be removed. So long as the automated edits are within policy, Betacommand can be trusted to make them. I also propose a strong caution to Betacommand regarding an effort towards civility. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with rspeer here: "ideally everyone's edits are within policy". I'm not sure a Giano-like removal works here. Sceptre (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the "Giano like removal", is there a link? NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Motion: re SlimVirgin restriction. You know what happened: Giano went on civility parole. People poked him. Big drama with every block. ArbCom restricted it so that only the committee can block him, in very specific and limited cases. Sceptre (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose Betacommand's continued inability to respect the other users of the project through his disregard for civility and his agreed upon editing restrictions don't remotely show that he's regained the trust of the community. This thread and his talk page show further evidence of that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the restrictions are preventing incivility. I don't think they are effective in that way.  I do believe that his automated edits will be within policy. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, which is only further evidence that he should be sent on a long vacation. We don't reward people for disrespecting the community. They're effective in preventing disruption if he follows him. If he doesn't follow them he should be blocked through an escalating system (Which should if worked out put his next block at about a year) until he either follows them or he's indef blocked or banned. Frankly he should be banned on civility basis alone as absolutely no amount of "strong cautions" have done anything to temper his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - his reward for refusing to abide by restrictions he agreed to is... no restrictions? I think not. The community showed it does not trust him, as he does not gain consensus before making sweeping edits. Until he regains that trust, the restrictions should stand or be made tighter, or he should be forcibly invited to take a long vacation. At which point he would have to regain the community's trust anyway. // roux    06:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? As a reward for ignoring the restriction that he agreed to after he was caught (among many other things) running bots on his own account, you're offering to:
 * Remove the restriction entirely
 * Assert that Betacommand can be trusted to make automated edits
 * Grant a special dispensation to Betacommand to run bots on his own account, which no one else is allowed to do (except for occasional admins where we look the other way)
 * Step down Betacommand's civility probation to a "strong caution"
 * Endorse Betacommand's use of "I was within policy" as a catch-all defense
 * Might as well propose him for adminship while you're at it. rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: They were applied due to disruptive behavior and were agreed on by community census, they shouldn't be removed just because he has decided to break the restrictions. Peachey88 (Talk Page 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is akin to saying 'Grawp is persistent, so let's lift the community ban since it doesn't work'. &mdash; neuro (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the restrictions would work if administrators actually enforced them (or could, in the case of "uninvolved" administrators). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose He had his chance and just keeps thumbing his nose at everyone else. rootology ( C )( T ) 14:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A different proposal
I propose to remove the "uninvolved admin" clause from Betacommand's restrictions. Betacommand can be blocked by any admin for incivility or for making a pattern of bot-like edits, subject only to the usual conventions (WP:BLOCK) about admins placing blocks. Admins can be trusted to use their blocking power correctly and responsibly. In the current state of things, Betacommand can blatantly thumb his nose at the restrictions (as he just did in the talk-page thread I linked to) and our hands are tied by the fact that anyone who has paid any attention could be considered "involved". rspεεr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why so you can continue to harass and troll me? Im getting sick of the stalking so either stop or I will file arbcom. Im making a solid stand here, if there is any question about whether or not my edits have consensus I will take it to VP. as it stands my edit have consensus so that requirement of the VP is not valid. βcommand 06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am questioning whether your edits have consensus. If you observe the discussion above, it's not so clear. I already asked you, back when I was just addressing you on your talk page, to take it to the VP (and in response you blew up at me and closed the discussion). However, I must point out that the restrictions you agreed to did not depend on anyone questioning you first. rspεεr (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I have said, read WP:NFCC the policy that requires rationales for every usage. images without rationales should be deleted and those with at least one rationale should be removed from those pages lacking a rationale. βcommand 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand, your edits don't have consensus and the editing restriction clearly covers edits which are wholly within policy. You breached the editing restriction. As I hinted above, you might want to take this whole thread as a warning not to do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * read the policy it states otherwise. βcommand 06:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your editing restrictions supersede policy.--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No they dont. policy is policy. βcommand 06:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Supersede wasn't the right word, think of it like a venn diagram, maybe this will make things clearer for you your edits are bound both by policy and the editing restrictions placed on you that you said you agreed to.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Any admin should be able to carry out their standard practices when dealing with a user (in this case Betacommand) after the community consensus has been reached and the restrictions finalized. Peachey88 (Talk Page 06:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm sorry. I would rather see a neutral third party confirmation. Beta's been a very contentious editor, and if the Giano situation has taught me anything, it's that getting a third party involved would be much better, as opposed to having things continually blow up and unintentionally cause more disruption.--Toffile (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are like 6 accounts on wikipedia that haven't been involved with betacommand and 4 of them are blocked sock puppets. Should we add a category to various admins userpages that say "Never been involved with betacommand" so that we could try and find one if need be? And would that also mean that once an admin blocks betacommand once, that is it. he now becomes "involved" and can't block him again?--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are over 1,600 admins on Wikipedia. Plenty of them haven't been in long cases of monitoring Betacommand's behavior.--Toffile (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of those are actually active though, or even regular? Betacommand's issues often draw in large crowds over a period of several days which means most active users (and administrators who should be watching this page) have either contributed to the discussions or read them and therefore been influenced by them. checking a few random ones in the first column alone I'm noticing several who have made only a few dozen edits all year. Finding someone completely uninformed is often pointless because 1) it takes them forever to get the context given the length of this 2)if they don't put that time in, they treat it as a standard X issue and give him a tiny short block.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a major difference between reading something and being involved with him. One can read or discuss something without being drawn into a dispute. I'm not suggesting that the administrators be completely uninformed, just that they don't constantly monitor Betacommand and wait for something to block him on. Those sort of unilateral blocks almost never end well for all the parties involved.--Toffile (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a major difference between there being 1600 admins and 1600 pages belonging to admins.. you can see numerous admins who have multiple entries there through archives and other subpages. Actual admin numbers are likely much smaller.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I based my numbers off of Special:Statistics...which counts accounts with the sysop flag. Not user pages. Even if they aren't all active, it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of admins who don't have intricate histories with Betacommand.--Toffile (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem lies with what the restriction says. It doesn't say "intricate history" it simply says "involved" which could be any admin who ever offered a comment on betacommand if one wanted to interpret it that way, and you can imagine some people would.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sort of lawyering really has never worked in the past from what I've seen. I understand the concern, however I really think that past actions with involved admins and blocking have never worked out for the best.--Toffile (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I won't deny that bias exists, and that we are infact human. Some will succumb, the uninvolved stipulation was designed as a safeguard. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocking policy already has a stipulation about not blocking someone you're currently involved in a dispute with. Does that mean if we have a dispute, you couldn't block me for the rest of our careers on wikipedia ever?--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I'd buy that. Admins are voted upon, checked up on, etc. Given the widespread nature of this its extremely unreasonable to disallow most of the admin population from dealing with him. I would only recommend that only admins who have not been involved in a content dispute with him in the last few days (which I think is covered in blocking policy) be disallowed from dealing with him.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm in the middle of a conversation with Betacommand right now, which I think may be very helpful to everyone. I would like to ask, politely, that everyone hold off for a little bit, back away from the not-dead-but-certainly-mortally-wounded-horse for a little while. Have a cup of tea, maybe. Please? // roux    06:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Betacommand can't be trusted to use automated editing tools in a nonabusive way. That's why he has sanctions on him. It's as simple as that. Jtrainor (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly there aren't enough "uninvolved" administrators, and it would be useful to have administrators who are familiar with him making the decisions. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

More discussion
Just wondering, ignoring Betacommand's editing restrictions who here thinks that the edits were outside of policy? --Chris  09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What does it matter? He's under restrictions regardless whether his edits abide by some policy of his choice. If I was an admin, I'd give him a week off to think it over. Grace Note (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Grace Note, it doesn't matter whether or not his edits were correct, appropriate or not in dispute. The simple fact is that the community placed him under various restrictions for his behavior. Those restrictions are not flexible or open to circumvention. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, the edits didn't break any policies. That was never the point. rspεεr (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand indef blocked
Since the discussion between User:Roux and BC appears to be happening off WP, I have enacted an indef block on BC's account in the meantime. I cannot believe that we are having this discussion again; there is rarely an issue on whether the image compliance deletion notifications are outside of policy, but the manner in which they are conducted and especially the responses made to any query. Now, if BC wants to bring this (and me) to ArbCom to resolve then by all means unblock the account so he may commence proceedings - otherwise please do not vary the sanction until the community comes to some sort of decision. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sad to say that I now support this. We tried hard to give him chance after chance, yet he's now gone ahead and broken his final set of restrictions. I believe that for right or wrong, Betacommand is a serious time sink to the project and now constitues an overall net negative hence my support for this block.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There need be no abatement of any subsequent discussion here while the Arbs consider whether to take the case, and I have suggested as much in my statement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It can continue here, yes. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it's come to this, yes, especially given the ongoing civility issues and apparent unwillingness to acknowledge his community imposed restrictions. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo Ryan's sadness and also endorse this block. I don't really see any use in arbitration -- until Betacommand comes to his senses, there is nothing much that needs to be done right now. Kusma (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse per BC's statement that he has no intention of abiding by editing restrictions . BC has never understood that while yes, his edits are within policy, there has never been a consensus for bot-like removals of images that don't conform to this aspect of policy.  If these images actually do belong in the articles, then it is better to spend time solving the pro forma problems with the image description page (writing appropriate rationales) than it is to blindly remove the images from articles.  But either way, human judgment is needed.  --B (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I even provided a venn diagram above...--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse this. His utter failure to acknowledge his civility issues shows someone who just isn't willing to change.--Crossmr (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Wow....having looked this stuff up I have to agree. Every time someone gives him the slightest bit of critism he accuses them of harrasment. "No harrasment" and "no personal attacks" does not mean "no critism allowed" – in fact I'm sure wikipedia would be rather crappy without critism. He also seems to have a rather big ego and viciously harrases those who disagree with him by accusing them of harrasment. Wikipedia's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded and they waste far more of the community's time than vandals. I say we show him the door.--Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123 14:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Given Betacommand's unwillingness in this thread to acknowledge having strayed from the editing restrictions, I likely would have blocked him by now myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse. It's not ideal to have to indef-block someone who admittedly can do a lot of good towards the project. However, the sheer amount of negativity caused by Betacommand and his behaviour is huge, and now definitely outweighs the benefit he brings to the project. Betacommand is unfortunately a net negative to this project. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The ongoing lack of civility (saying other editors are trolling and so on) also won't do at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse per Islander MikeHobday (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If one editor calls you a jackass, screw em. If two ediotrs call you a jackass, screw em both. If three editors call you a jackass, they can all go to hell. If FIVE of more editors call you this, then its time to be fitted for a saddle. Sorry BC, time to saddle up. --Tom 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No comment on the block, but this comment is precisely correct - if you have five independent complaints about your behavior, it's time to look at your behavior. In fact, three is probably enough to start wondering. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the assessment; one or two people complaining is (more often than not) just someone whining, whereas three or more complaints is indicative of an actual problem. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse this block. The community has been pushed beyond its tolerance by Beta's truculence.  Nandesuka (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No endorsement of this block. I will make my rationale below.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Objection - Per precedents. I am someone who doesn't believe in going after people for every little thing they do, a violation of something or not. I personally agree that there has been disruption in this project, but as I always suggest, we should do some mentoring, and probably a long probation period. Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion). Therefore, I object to this indefinite block. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further massive bot-assisted disruption and gross incivility. I strongly disagree with the assertion that "Blocking never solves anything, it just brings back more problems (e.g. block evasion)", since we have many effective tools at our disposal to prevent Betacommand from evading this block, including automated reversion, range blocks, and filing an abuse report with his ISP. John254 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully endorse the block This has gone on far too long. Since the last community restrictions were put in place, Betacommand has been blocked four times and has never accepted any of them as legitimate. His answer is always of the form "this is bullshit but I'll ride it out" and it is clear that he refuses to abide by the restrictions concerning runs of automated edits. Yes, the runs in question were for the most part in line with policy but I should point out (as I tried to point out to BC to no avail) that a run to remove sports teams logos from tens of pages is unwise when it's done in the middle of a contentious RfC on that very subject. Beta's answer is that since fair-use rationales are not given for each instance of the use of the logo, removal is within policy. This is correct but these automated runs are nevertheless bound to escalate conflicts on the RfC. Betacommand's "shoot first, ask questions later" strategy is detrimental to the project and the editing restrictions were put in place precisely to avoid these problems. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse indefinite block. Betacommand's conduct in the discussion leading up to this is a textbook illustration of the "I am right, everyone else is the problem, fuck off" approach that is a characteristic of long time problematic users, but profoundly disruptive to our collaborative work – even if pursued (as here) with good intent. Since there's no indication that he's ready to change his attitude, or even adhere to his community-imposed restriction, a block until such time as he is ready is approppriate.  Sandstein   18:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude by butting in, but if there's near-if-not-totally unanimous support for Betacommand's indef block; can we consider Betacommand banned? -- Dylan 620  Contribs Sign! 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Indefinite block means it could end tomorrow, or it could end next year. I for one have hopes that Betacommand can contribute productively. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #36454F;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse indefinite block. I think he has tested the limits of the community's patience too long.--Berig (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse block, BC has been given chance after chance after chance, and still continues to engage in the sort of poor behaviour that caused the problems in the first place. The real tragedy is that if he'd just asked to make these automated edits, we probably would have given him permission to do so.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Endorse I do not think that a block was inevitable here.  If Betacommand had simply responded to the concerns raised on his talk page in a reasonable manner, we probably wouldn't even be here.  But because he responded with incivility and a declaration that he wasn't going to follow the restrictions, he escalated the situation to the point where a block was necessary.  If Betacommand were to acknolwedge that his actions violated the sanctions and further acknowledged that he is, in fact, bound by the sanctions, I would support a reduction of the block to 1 month, continuing with the course of increasing sanctions for violation of the restrictions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse After over a year of this I think the community's patience has been well and truly exhausted, as amply documented by others above. I am of the "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" school of thought, if BC was able to demonstrate he had moved on from the behaviour which got him here at some later point I wouldn't be averse to his unblocking. But to be honest I wouldn't really protest much if it remained in place, he's probably had more chances than anyone else on this project to reform. Orderinchaos 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

strong objection to off-wiki/IRC this time
I reject any approach to discuss this off-wiki. That worked for shit last time based on this very series of threads; it has to be done on-wiki. If any parties aren't happy with that, that is a shame. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 14:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose that we can stop BC from commenting there, but any points made/raised there and not mentioned here should form no part of any decision (IMHO). LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course; he can comment anywhere, but no admin given the huge history here should be unblocking without express consensus on-wiki, and the same with figuring out any editing restrictions. Wasn't there strong consensus last time that his restrictions were compulsory rather than voluntary, anyway? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were. He was part of the group that worked out the wording of the existing restrictions, so he cannot claim they were enforced without notification (it should be noted that while he had input he had no veto). While I acted upon reading the threads above, I note that I made this commitment regarding the placement of a final set of restrictions. I regret that BC has found himself unable to comply with them, and is reverting to wiki-lawyering over what is policy rather than the conditions he was forced to accept. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I was lurking AN/I during the restriction contract negotiation period. Wikilawyering indeed. It was all about the letter of the law, not the spirit. It was quite nauseating to witness. Being technically correct yet managing to piss everyone off in the meantime is the antithesis of wiki-collaboration. I do hope there are other internet projects that would be a good fit for Betacommand and could use his talents, but as it stands, he and Wikipedia are an absolute mismatch. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, editors can talk about what they please, where they please, but anything brought up off-wiki should have no sway here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree that any and all off-wiki discussions are irrelevant to what happens here. The problems here exist on-wiki, so they need to be fixed on-wiki. Nandesuka (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - hi all. The conversation I was having with Betacommand was along the lines of trying to help him help himself and help him find a way to productively resolve this situation without getting blocked. It was not an attempt to create consensus offwiki in any way. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Location
Out of interests of space and navigation shouldn't all this dissucsion about Betacommand be moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand and contuined there? Peachey88 (Talk Page 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heck no. Since when do we have noticeboards for users? Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand was created solely because the thread about him got too long back then. It's not the "Everything about Betacommand goes here"-noticeboard. --Conti|✉ 13:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this needs more eyeballs, not less, and that's exactly what we'd lose if this got shuffled off to an obscure subpage that only the involved might have on their watchlist. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be that it might be copied there for archiving purposes, to keep the subject in one easily referable location, once discussion has ceased on this instance. However, thanks for the link - it may become useful if this does get picked up by ArbCom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The best solution would be for Betacommand to hand over his bot code to someone else, and help in a technical way only. Betacommand is bot-savvy and could be very helpful to the bot-development community, but it is entirely obvious that there is a large weight of opinion behind the idea that he should not run the bots himself.  It is unfortunate that a lot of this is the result of inevitable kickback about necessary work; it is obvious to me that anybody and especially any bot who polices non-free content policy is perceived as some kind of Antichrist by a certain sector of the Wikipedia community and hounded relentlessly as a result.  I think this is almost at the level of being a feature of the community, not a bug, so only people capable of handling that kind of crap with equanimity should be doing it.  And that, sadly, does not include Betacommand.  Guy (Help!) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't think anyone would try to pull off this kind of argumentation at this time. The issue is not that people are perceiving the supposedly angelic Betacommand as Antichrist because he polices fair use. His bots are extremely buggy and poorly programmed, and he has huge conduct issues: note all the "fuck you"s and other swearing on his talk page in response to civil and correct criticism. Betacommand is not being "hounded". Anyone who ran bots as poorly as him would receive the same amount of criticism. But in Betacommand's and some of his supporters' eyes, any negative feedback on his bots, or even well-meant suggestions, is equivalent to incivility, trolling, vandalism and harassment. Note that Betacommand has also been criticised for poor bot work in regards to such mundane tasks as adding articles to categories, changing the formats of dates and so on. Are these also such types of über-controversial tasks where anyone doing them is perceived as Antichrist? Don't think so. The issue is with Betacommand, not with everyone else. Is he back? (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the point, which was: operation of NFC bots requires the patience of a saint, which Beta clearly does not have. Therefore let him do the technical thing (which he seems to do well) and leave the user interaction to someone who does have the patience of a saint.  Needless to say that's me out of the frame. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does he do it well, though? I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking, but there are certainly people in this discussion who have been saying that his bots are poorly programed and full of bugs. I can't really comment - I have near-zero knowledge of bots, hence why I ask. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already suggested to BC that I would be happy to run the NFCC#10c compliance bot under my own (or a separate) account. IIRC there isn't an alternative to what that bot does at the moment - STBotI polices complete 10c failure (i.e. no rationale at all) but I don't believe there's anything else picking up other 10c problems. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal the third
After looking at this thread, the restrictions given, the case opened at arbcom, and so forth, I propose the following solution: The only reason I think this is appropriate is that this is the first time that Beta's found some task that can be actually a long-term one that he can be much more effective using semi-automated tools, and that is very difficult to see as being a contentious issue, as non-free compliance is necessary by the Foundation. As best I can tell, there has yet to be any attempt to use VPR to propose a task prior to undertaking it, so this presents a first good opportunity to do so. --M<font size="-3">ASEM 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta (remaining blocked until this point is resolved) provides a case per the community restrictions on WP:VPR that involves the removal of images from pages that lack non-free rationale using his seemingly-automated manner (some editor will help post for him due to the block). We follow the community sanctions - that is, should there be opposition to the task, there is discussion and so forth.  (Yes, this is what should have been done before Beta started what he was doing).
 * Presuming the task is approved at VPR, Beta is unblocked and allowed to continue though I would state that his edits for a day should be monitored and logged briefly by an admin (involved or not) just to make sure that the seemingly-automated edits in mainspace are appropriate per his proposal and do not go beyond that point. (Spot checking is likely appropriate here). This should be done for at least one month.
 * If Beta is using his own programmed tools to do this, this fact should be made exceedingly clear in the edit summaries (even if it is just "removing non-free image without rational, using my automated script"). That is, Beta needs to be upfront that he is using automated tools, even of his own making, for this process to help keep this remedy open.  (We're not asking for code, however).  A brief summary of this tool should be part of his VPR proposal.
 * Should it be found that Beta is doing other seemingly-automated tasks per community restrictions among these NFC image removals and has not discussed it at VPR even if it is completely within policy, he should be indef blocked until that issue can be resolved. (eg if he starts removing images that do have rationales but may not be complete, that is a different proposal than removing images that lack a rationale completely and thus he should be blocked)
 * oppose While the long term problems with beta and his bots are indeed long term they are by no means his only problem. The incivility, and pointy behaviour about (his outright refusal to acknowledge that he violated the sanctions and that they mean anything) shows someone who has no interest in working in the best interest of the community. The community decides its best interest, not betacommand. There is absolutely no reason the community should be bending over for someone like that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crossmr. Beta has had a second chance, third chance, fourth chance, fifth chance etc. etc. etc. At some point, the community must put their foot down and stop. Though certainly well meant, your proposal is just yet another chance - give it a month or two, and we'll be right back here having exactly the same discussion. Enough is enough. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 15:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are already restrictions in place that have consensus and that beta himself agreed to here. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Should a consensus that the block be lifted or varied not arise, nor ArbCom decide to take the case, then perhaps this can form part of a subsequent decision. First, I think we should allow another 24-36 hours to allow in this holiday period for a full provision of opinion. After weighing the community desires, then we can see if amendments or other proposals need considering. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Beta has in the past ignored restrictions placed on him like this, I see no reason to believe that he'd pay attention to these ones. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

Beta motions at RFAR
I've asked the committee to codify the community restrictions that Beta himself agreed to follow as a full motion of the Arbitration Committee. To codify those restrictions (which again, Beta himself agreed to) as binding with the weight of the Committee as a motion. That would end any nonsense, and any trouble then if it happened would be from Beta not following the restrictions in the future. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock proposal
I propose that we unblock Beta based on the following rationale: If Beta ever does turn rogue, and start doing some actual disruptive editing, I will be first in line to endorse his indefinite block. I just don't see any actual disruption here. Please, lets unblock him, and take this up again when he starts to actually make bad edits... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocks are not punitive, and this block, even with some apparent agreement from some editors, smacks of punishing Beta for some random transgression.
 * That transgression was not, of itself, disruptive. If it could be shown that Beta was intentionally violating existing policy, like he has in the past, then I would be standing in line to endorse this block.  I just don't see any of that here.
 * There is no evidence anywhere that these edits, if they had been committed by anyone not named "Betacommand", that they would even get noticed. That is plain evidence that this block is simply punitive retribution for Beta's prior transgressions.  He has done nothing wrong here.  We're not a police force, we're not here to enforce laws.  We are here to write an encyclopedia.  That an editor is indef blocked for making edits that no one can say are bad edits is rediculous.  Yes, I understand that Betacommand has, in the past, used automated tools abusively.  The message has been sent.  Betacommand is being watched.  Have his latest edits actually harmed the encyckopedia?  No.  All they have done is upset people because he somehow is violating some arbitrary terms of some sanctions.  Yeah, he violated them.  But as they edits themseleves seem innocuous, I see no reason for any indefinate block here.


 * Support per Jayron's rationale, and mine in the section above. I do believe that we add a small punishment to it. I don't like continuous blocking of people for every little violation. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "every little violation". Lawl. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He is violating the restrictions that were put in place with his agreement so that he was not community banned the last time. What if he does agree a mentor, or a new wording, to the satisfaction of the community? He has said, above, that community restrictions do not supercede policy, and therefore he does not have to comply with restrictions... So what does any sanction short of blocking then mean? Nothing, because BC will say anything to be allowed to edit - and will then edit to his interpretation. Good edits, generally, but in spite of the concerns of the community nevertheless. No editor has the right to edit to the contempt of the majority of the remaining community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So the previous restrictions that Beta himself agreed to and are placed on him by the community can be ignored by Beta... why? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit confict X3) What's the point of editing restrictions if we don't enforce them? This block is not punitive. It's aim is not to punish Betacommand, but rather to enforce a restriction that was placed in order to prevent disruption. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The automated edits are not the only problem, or even the chief problem. Betacommand should remain blocked until, at the very least, there is a firm committment from him to discuss his edits and maintain all interactions in a civil way. Perhaps after some days vacation he will be ready to do that. I hope. But he should not just be unblocked now without committment to change, or we'll be right back here yet again, as we have too many times already. Jonathunder (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jonathunder - there has been no commitment to even discuss, let alone address, Beta's actions. This is indeed preventative; Beta has failed to follow restrictions which he agreed to; he is not even re-committing to that; where is our assurance? There is none. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblocking to prevent Betacommand from engaging in further massive bot-assisted disruption and gross incivility. John254 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Further massive bot-assisted disruption"?? Could you point out the "massive bot-assisted disruption" that has occurred in this latest incident? Hyperbolic missing-the-point bollocks like this really doesn't help the issue. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Betacommand's most significant incident of bot-assisted disruption was his removal of the edit links from thousands of stub templates, which required an extensive and tedious effort to reverse. See, for example,  . The most recent incident may have been more minor, but presents issues of the same nature. John254 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not at all actually. The (year-old) diffs you present were problematic; the latest edits were not problematic at all, save for the fact that their automatic nature violated Beta's restrictions. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per my block endorsement above, absent any very convincing change of attitude by Betacommand.  Sandstein   18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unblock at this time. Betacommand has had an incredible number of last chances, last last chances, absolutely final last chances, and "oh yes indeedy, this really is your final chance (honest) this time". Repeatedly, a large number of editors spend a great deal of time and effort trying to formulate a framework that Betacommand can work within, so as not to cause disruption. Repeatedly, we find Betacommand adopting an attitude that the restrictions mean something other than what everybody else thinks they mean. It is abundantly clear that Betacommand is disruptive when he is running bots, or automated processes. It is also clear that every attempt to formulate a restriction that would prevent him running bots and automated edits has floundered, because he simply hunts for an interpretation of the restriction that allows him a loophole. In this current case, we find that he argues that the restriction requiring him to get explicit consensus in favour of any repeated series of edits doesn't apply because such actions are supported by policy (and consensus is therefore implicit). It is, in my view, not what was intended, or envisaged by those who drafted or endorsed the restrictions. Until we have an absolutely bulletproof set of restrictions, I cannot endorse and unblock. Mayalld (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock Regarding the claim that "There is no evidence anywhere that these edits, if they had been committed by anyone not named "Betacommand", that they would even get noticed." I disagree entirely. The latest run came in the middle of a contentious RfC and were counterproductive. Had anyone else made these edits, I would have asked them to stop and wait until the RfC dust settles because they will necessarily be perceived as hostile. Betacommand's persistent inability to defuse situations is the core of the problem. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock, mostly per my comments here and here. Beta has had far, far too many chances. At some point we have to say "no", and stop bending over further, whether the action that makes us stop is a Wikipedia-destroying action, or something smaller. Betacommand has already been given the very strong message that "it doesn't matter how many times you 'break the rules', or are unacceptably rude to people, you will always be unblocked" - we need to change this message. Like I've said before, Betacommand is now (and in my opinion has been for a while) a net negative to this project - the problems he causes us vastly outweigh any potential benefit he can bring us. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. There's a limit to how many chances a disruptive editor can get.--Berig (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock - Beta has had enough chances to change his ways, but he has not, and from what I can tell he would not do so in future. This worries me, and as such I feel that this block is indeed preventative, not punitive, and also is warranted. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock at this time - Beta can and has done a lot of great work on Wikipedia, but there is community consensus that some of what he's done and was still doing is not ok. He's been warned, talked with, blocked repeatedly then unblocked, and keeps coming back to doing stuff that there's consensus is not helpful / disruptive.  Unblock should happen under one of two circumstances - One, community consensus on what he's been doing changes, and we decide that it's ok again, or Two, Beta agrees to change his ways and stop doing the stuff he keeps getting in trouble over.  I see no sign of 1 - consensus here seems to be firm (not unanimous, but very strong).  I see no sign of 2, so far.  So I regretfully believe he needs to stay blocked for now.
 * It's always terribly unfortunate when this happens with someone who's done so much good for Wikipedia, but none of us are above the rules. Beta needs to understand that and abide by them better.  BOLD is one thing - he's gone beyond that into disruption, and until he understands that and backs off he's doing more harm than good overall.  I hope that he decides to change his behavior...  I want him back.  But not right now, without some sign of real change.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - nobody not named BetaCommand would be given free reign to violate editing restrictions. He has been instructed not to make unapproved bot-like edits.  He has ignored this restriction and says that he has no intention of following it.  A block is the community's only recourse to enforce a rule that someone just doesn't feel like obeying. --B (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet again. This is just another in a series of moves by him to disrespect the community. He has been given a thousand chances and its done. His repeated failure to even acknowledge the restrictions he agreed to shows an utter lack of respect for the other members of this community. This community does not need members who don't respect it, regardless of what "good" someone thinks they might do.--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. BC can find something else to do with his time. At best he's a marginal contributor with few social skills; at worst, he's a time sink & an example to countless newbies that the way to getting noticed here is to annoy lots of other Wikipedians. And didn't he hand over his copyright bot responsibilities to someone else months ago? For the record, I don't use a bot, & find it a challenge to make 25 non-trivial edits in a day, so I have to wonder about his protests that he's not using a bot. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The community restrictions were put in place as part of a previous breach of community trust. Betacommand decided to abide to them, then subsequently decided that he would ignore the restrictions, because he is following policy.  There's plenty of other users who have offered to perform Betacommand's tasks, so he's not filling a unique niche.  The main issue is that he is he has decided that his interpretation of policy supersedes a community restriction.  We've let him have carte blanche in the past, and we know where it ended.  Unblocking him will probably result in more drama and another  probable ANI thread 3 months down the road.  His attitude regarding this entire event has been uncooperative, and as a result, I think the block is a net positive to the encyclopedia. Fraud <font style="color:#5bf8a9"> talk to me  22:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have resolved this part of the thread, as there does not appear to be much support for unblocking Beta at this time. Thank you all for your input. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand's statement
Betacommand has made a statement on this talkpage. He can obviously see the discussion here, so any comments should - I feel - be made here and any responses copied over from his talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Copy of my response to Betacommand: No offence intended to Roux, but he's had a fair few problems in the past here as well . At one point he was verging on the brink of exhausting the communities patience altogether so he seems far from an ideal choice to keep watch over things. Should you be unblocked, you would really need an experienced and trusted administrator to keep watch over things. I'll have a think of some people who might do the job well - I like the idea of have 2/3 users taking on that role so they can be as much help as possible and so that there's always someone around for the members of the community to go to should they have concerns. If you were to be unblocked, that would be last chance for sure - I think you might have passed that point anyway as far as the community is concerned, but there's still a possibility that something can be worked out. I'll work on getting some names together for people that can be put to the community as formal mentors.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given this statement, which strikes me as both reasonable and temperate, I would support changing Betacommand's block from indef to a fixed time frame of 1-4 weeks. Especially if quality mentors can be found, I still think that he will be a net positive to the project after some time to reflect on the   level of frustration he has caused in the community and why.  Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with a shortened block term like Eluchil404 suggests, provided the mentors are set up like Ryan wants to do. But Beta, please, if you're reading this... not again? :( <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with shortened block term once suitable mentors have been found. Agree with Ryan that this is really his last chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Community" rejected mentors last time. Gimmetrow 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was last time. Consensus can change (and so far seems to be). Is there a reason mentorship would be bad (has it even been tried before)? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. The strange rules and lack of mentors was obviously going to lead to the current situation. It was seemingly designed to fail. Gimmetrow 01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Clarification: shortened block term should be at least a week given the ongoing issues. That should be enough time for things to cool down and for off-wiki discussion with his mentors to prepare him for returning to editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Though reluctantly, I also agree with the shortened block term, providing a) that suitable mentors have been found, and b) we actually actually agree as a community, preferably including Betacommand, that this is well and truely a final chance, i.e. any further incident that escalates this far is met with an immediate indefinite block or even ban, no questions asked. I'd like that point to be added to Beta's restrictions, really. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, after thinking about it overnight, I oppose this unblock. Like I've said a couple of times above - he's had final chances, final final chances, absolutely final chances etc. No more. Enough. If he's unblocked, we'll just be in exactly the same position in 2-3 months time. No thanks. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 07:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I'm comfortable shortening the block to 1 month with an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a promise to adhere to a strict reading of the restrictions going forward. I'm not really concerned about mentors - I mean, I don't see what they're going to tell Betacommand that he doesn't already know.  I do want peoeple keeping an eye on him, though.  -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - though Ryan, I'm not terribly pleased with your characterisation of me. Especially since Betacommand's statement is directly due to a long conversation I had with him. Anyway, I would support a reduction in the block to 1 week. Mentors I think would be good... Durova, FutPerf or JzG/Guy (for general cutting-through-bullshit talents), Newyorkbrad, bibliomanic15. In addition to the reduction, I would also suggest:
 * Adding the words "Blatant vandalism is not covered by this restriction" to the restrictions. I know, I know, he's unlikely to be blocked for reverting a massvandal spree. But I think blatant vandalism is an exception to the restrictions, and it's reasonable for a clear exception to be noted.
 * A mass-vandal spree can be undone by someone else. This is just handing him a semantic loophole. He already considers any little violation of any sub-part of the NFCC to be "blatant vandalism". rspεεr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair enough. Striking. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #6D351A;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The community should revisit the restrictions three months after the end of this block. If Betacommand has stayed within his limits, I would advocated that they be loosened or removed entirely at that time. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least his restrictions should last as long as his disruption. I believe his incivility goes back at least 2 years. 3 months of good behaviour is a drop in the bucket.--Crossmr (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose any shortened block. Sorry but an 11th hour apology (which we oddly don't have an article on) doesn't cut it for me this time. When multiple users beat their head against the wall trying to explain to you that your edits are bound by policy AND your editing restrictions, that you agreed to, and you basically act like they're trolls and the editing restrictions don't exist, suddenly being sorry when the chain is finally yanked after all this time isn't sincere to me. As was repeatedly said above, we've had last chances, final chances, last last last last last x10000 chances, and it has done nothing. There is absolutely zero evidence that another chance would make any difference. What has changed since last time? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He still violated his restrictions because he thought he was right, he attacked those who called him on it and he stubbornly ignored the community until indefinitely blocked and there was support for it this time. Now he's sorry?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the conversation I had with BC was prior to the block. I believe that he really did think he was acting within policy and within his restrictions. Was he wrong? Yes. Did he break his restrictions? Yes. Should he have been blocked for that violation? Absolutely. But I do think, based on that conversation with him, that he is genuinely apologetic for the mistakes he has made, and is genuinely going to knuckle down and stay within the narrowest application of the rules possible. We maintain the idea here that all people can be made into productive contributors. I think BC is no exception to that idea. Yes, his behaviour needs a lot of work--and I am among the first to say that good contributions do not excuse rude behaviour. But one final chance, with the very clear understanding within the community and especially on BC's part that this is it', gives him a chance to continue being productive for the project. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But we've been through this so many times before. I've lost count of the number of absolute last chances he's been given. Orderinchaos 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How could he possibly think that? He edited more than 25 pages and didn't put it up first. There is no reasonable way anyone could think they were editing within those restrictions. I see nothing here from any statement he's made to give me any indication that his behaviour will change. A lot of people focus on his mass edits, but lets not forget the years of civility issues and this is just another example. His being productive to the project is not a net benefit, so us giving him another super duper ultimate final chance is not a positive move here. If I thought this was the last discussion we'd ever have to have about betacommand, I'd support a reduced block. But I don't even have to ask Kreskin on this one.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems as though he was under the impression that existing consensus was enough. This has been abundantly clarified to him. I dunno.. I know he's screwed up a bunch of times. I also think--and yes, I have been over the history, which took hours--there is an element of sincerity in what he has said both to me privately and to the community publicly that has not been there before. And yes, believe me, if he is given this chance and screws it up I will be the first calling for a permanent, it's over, immediate ban. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #6D351A;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that doesn't fill me with confidence nor is it a compelling argument. So what if you'll change your position next time? If next time someone else says the same thing do we let him back in again? Do we just keep going until there isn't a single body left willing to stand for him?--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys understand you are being set up for another fall? BC has repeatedly demonstrated over months, maybe even years, that he does not have the temperment and self-discipline necessary to make this work. I think you're making a mistake - but good luck I guess(?). Wiggy! (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit: Noting oppose for formality given this seems to have become a vote) Sadly, agree with you (and Crossmr above) - he's made promises and undertakings and broken them before. No user is bigger than the community, ultimately. Orderinchaos 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose unblock, keep it indef and make it a official community ban. He has one more chance at least half a dozen times and failed to behave every single time. He can't even abide by restrictions he agreed to (which are not onerous). Viridae Talk 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How much more time and energy are we going to waste on BetaCommand??? For the last two years, his actions have been a regular topic in this forum. He does something that annoys one or more people to the point he gets blocked, another group step up to defend his actions, make promises for him, he gets unblocked & he repeats his objectionable behavior. And why do they keep supporting him? Has he done anything to improve Wikipedia that no one else has or can do? His contributions seem to be nothing more than a rapid succession of ill-considered edits which as often as not need to be fixed or reversed.


 * He doesn't have supporters -- he has enablers.


 * As for mentoring, why didn't he agree to this long before this? Why not when he lost his Admin bit? Or the first time he was blocked for running his bot? Or the second? Or the fifth? It's commendable that someone wants to step up & mentor him -- but wouldn't that effort be better spent on something else? I'm not making the assumption that volunteer energy is fungible -- an hour spent on BetaCommand is an hour taken from writing a FA -- but if a tenth of the time spent arguing over banning BC were spent supporting other Wikipedians who are doing the heavy lifting around here, maybe we wouldn't be losing these folks. Like AGK, who recently left. Or might leave -- like Guy, SandyGeorgia, or maybe dab (I keep wondering when he'll toss in the towel). And then there's the message sent with all of this bickering to keep BC from being banned: there are a lot of Wikipedians who are quietly disgruntled, but remaining civil & respectful, who see how that is not getting them any attention -- but being a jerk gets BetaCommand all sorts of second & third & tenth chances.


 * He's been a black hole that has sucked up too much time & effort from everyone here. I bet more words have been written about him than all of the Pokemon characters, tiny settlements in the U.S. no one has heard of, or internet memes -- combined. It's time to end this, write-protect his Talk page & move on to something completely different. -- llywrch (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People have offered to be mentors before, and Beta has accepted them in the past. Why did "The Community" refuse these mentorship arrangements before this? Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've heard of these offers. There was nothing keeping him from accepting their advice, & changing his behavior. He's been blocked & unblocked twenty-four times in the last 25 months. Nine of the first ten times, the block was reversed almost immediately; since then, only once was the block for as long as a week. He could have acknowledged at any one of those times that how he handled other people wasn't working & gotten help. Now he sees that he has no more chances & he's willing to make any promise to keep from getting banned. He should have thought about that before now -- like anyone who wants to be part of the Wikipedia community does, all of the time. -- llywrch (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Viridae and Llywrch. Enough is enough. Jtrainor (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per Roux and Ryan. Beta does useful work here. He's a bit incivil and forgets to run his edits through consensus sometimes. If we keep him held back with quick blocks at the hint of any problem, we should be able to end this problem. NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  04:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that any quick/short blocks etc would fix the problem further? He's been uncivil for years and blocked countless times. His useful work doesn't outweigh his problems.--Crossmr (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per all of my reasons outlined in the (now-closed) subthread above. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. Person has known views. Views polarise community. Community gets its act together and tells him to stop polarising the community. Person apologises andagrees to restriction. Person violates restriction. Person apologises to save face. Sound familiar? Sceptre (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all similar. Your oblique reference to the Kurt Weber case seems misplaced, as Kurt was outright hostile to Wikipedia in so many ways, and showed little concern for Wikipedia's mission.  Betacommand is rude, ascerbic, and in many ways overzealous to the point of major disruption, but I would have never questioned that he had the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.  Kurt Weber could never have been said to have had that.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The community decides what is best for it. Not betacommand. The community decided and he didn't follow that. As soon as he didn't follow that he was disrespecting the community and going against its interests.--Crossmr (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And now the community is being given further chance to discuss the issue. The "community" does not mean "Whatever prior result that was arrived at that I agree with".  Prior decisions are not written in stone, and no prior decision is required to be maintained in perpetuity.  The community may change its mind, and the community can do so even if you repeatedly respond to every single person supporting some form of unblocking with the exact same rationale.  The more often you repeatedly make these same edits, Crossmr, the more it looks like you mean the "community" to be yourself.  Everyone following this thread knows where you stand.  It is clear.  Responding to every editor with a differing viewpoint on this issue is bordering on harassment.  Please just let the discussion hammer itself out, and let other editors have their opinions on this matter.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't a vote and discussion isn't people simply leaving their opinions and walking away. Anyone is free to offer a counter point to anything I say just as I'm free to offer a counter point to anything they say. As for leaving a reply to everyone who supports an unblock I've only replied to the same number of top level posts in this particular discussion as you have, 1.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me when I say that (as someone who was fairly annoyed with Beta last time, and I now say unblock) that if it happens again, if he somehow isn't blocked, I'll bet you $10 of edits that he doesn't make it past the AC without a vacation. Just let the conversation breath. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. BC has been blocked five times in the past two months.  It's obvious that blocks, or the threat thereof do not have any effect on this user.  I'm not opposed to some form of return for BC, but threatening more of the same probably isn't going to have much of an effect.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Oppose. Followed the issue and discussion last time and again now. Fair to say that this particular community member's patience is exhausted. Good faith absenting itself, the discrepancy between the comments throughout Beta's talk page and the apology/unblock request is also striking. All the other comments are littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes, run-on sentences, etc., while the apology is pretty much perfectly formed. It's almost as if it was someone else's words. It seems odd to me. Mlaffs (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over the past two years, Beta has shown time and time again that either 1a) he doesn't give a toss what people who are not Beta think, period, and 1b) he has no qualms about disregarding restrictions imposed by said people who are not Beta, then Wiki-lawyering later on when necessary - or 2) he has a communicative disorder. Either case is possible, but neither case is compatible with a collaborative project. You do not hire somebody without arms to teach sign language. You do not have somebody allergic to cats working at the animal shelter. You do not have an Amish person fix your engine. And you do not have somebody incapable of level-headed discussion and/or reading comprehension working on a collaborative written project. In response to the continuing line of BetaDefense - that he writes bots that do things and the things they do are well-intentioned and "think of the copyright" - there is no shortage of coders in the world, and I'm sure there are several open-source sorts who would be willing to write copyright bots for free if the foundation found it was necessary and approached them. And I would go so far as to speculate that their bots would function better than Beta's, and that the end-user "why was my thing erased" support they provide... well, it'd be hard to top this, but we can always hope... Badger Drink (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This should have ended with the "leave well enough alone" plea from jayron above... Protonk (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Enough is enough. He has had so many many chances to reform and he constantly mocks the community by reverting to old bad behaviour. IMO, it's a waste of future time and effort to give him yet another chance.--Berig (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Betacommand's statement is thoughtful and asks for something more nuanced than a simple thumbs up/thumbs down response. He doesn't expect to get unblocked immediately and expresses regret.  That's not an easy sort of post to make and few attempt it at a juncture like this one.  On principle, we ought to welcome such statements--better late in the day than not at all.  It does persuade me to keep an open mind; perhaps sometime down the road we can revisit this.  Two things Betacommand could do between now and then to improve the picture are: (1) respect the block and avoid socking, and (2) build up a good contribution history at another wiki.  Durova Charge! 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - in his statement, I see two things: a lot of make-nice talk and a solemn pledge...to STOP violating the minimum standards he agreed to in order to avoid a likely community ban several months ago. I cannot help but feel the same fundamental disconnect here that I've seen all along. He's not a bad guy, but he just insists on sticking the fork into the toaster, fighting tooth and nail through battalions of editors to do so. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question - has anyone considered the idea that Newyorkbrad posted on BC's talk page? Reproduced: (Posting here as an individual, not as an arbitrator, and without prejudice to anything should this or a related matter come before me in the latter capacity. Just thinking out loud here.) Suppose that for a period of time, Betacommand were permitted to use whatever methods he wanted, but rather than take actions (remove images, change templates, propose username blocks, whatever) he would instead list the items he thinks are problematic on an output page. Then another user could independently review the lists and decide which items should result in immediate action, which in tagging or warnings, which are not problematic, etc. We would retain Betacommand's skill at using tools to identify potential violations, but take him out of the role of ultimate decision-maker or notifier in areas where he's been controversial. Would this work? Newyorkbrad (talk) Yesterday, 7:57 pm (UTC-5)</blockquote:
 * Thoughts? // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  07:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have considered NYB's statement, and I think it's similar to what's already in place. BC would still have to get the green light to act (currently, I think he's supposed to run it through the VP), but he'd be allowed to use automated tools if he chose. Is the issue with BC just that he uses unauthorized bots or goes over an edit limit - whatever you want to call it, or that he's performing tasks for which there is no consensus? (I'm not familiar with all of the details.) If it's the former, NYB's proposal could work. If it's the latter, the proposal is too similar to the current restrictions that aren't being followed. <b style="color:#3366BB">W ODU P</b> 07:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close... under NYB's suggestion, Betacommand would take no actions. He would gather data, spit out a list, other people would decide what to do with it (which, I guess, could include asking him to do it, but that wouldn't be required). // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  07:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I got it now, thanks. Now that I understand a little better, it's something we could try if BC agrees and we get people to review his lists. I do worry that if BC is producing a lot of proposed changes within a relatively short time, we'd have a backlog of proposed edits, and I imagine it would be difficult for him to allow what he knows to be legitimate problems to linger for longer than they had to solely because no one has signed off on them. <b style="color:#3366BB">W ODU P</b> 08:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this is pretty much what was proposed last time: Beta would be able to use scripts, but a mentor would review any proposed tasks and provide a quick turnaround with a yay or nay before Beta could proceed. "The Community" rejected this, and came up with a set of rules with a long involved delay. Under these rules it could be days to a week before the proposed edits could actually be made. That seems like it would be a recipe for anxiety for many editors. Imagine how long many editors could function under restrictions not to fix any typos they noticed until they had posting a proposal and waited a week for a consensus to form that the typo could be fixed? And we're talking something more than typos here: many people are passionate about free content. Gimmetrow 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be even more complex than the current remedies, for no obvious gain. Everyone loses. rspεεr (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re Newyorkbrad's proposal: I hate to say it, but why should we bend over backwards and spend loads of time babysitting Betacommand when there are several other editors that could, and have proposed, to do these tasks without needing such an arrangement? This proposal is something we could have accepted say, 5 Betacommand scandals ago. Personally, I don't think Betacommand has any credibility now when he promises to stick by any restrictions. He has done the same thing as always: refusing to admit any guilt and attacking people criticising him, suddenly apologizing when it's clear people have had enough, then going back to his old ways. Is he back? (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have suggested Betacommand be banned for an indefinite period in the past, but people were not too keen on the idea. I believe him to be a net negative to our project, and think he'd be better off doing something else for a few months, and perhaps come back for fresh start-over when he's had some time to think how he's been acting.  Majorly  talk  08:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose His block should remain indefinite. How many times have we been through this? And if you're really buying his statement, I've got snow in Mississippi for sale. He will just run tasks that are 24, instead of 25 and laugh the whole time while doing it. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 10:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Betacommand was blocked indefinitely for violation of the last/existing restriction, which was the maximum allowance the community was then prepared to allow him. If he is to be unblocked, then it cannot be for any more less restrictive measures - in fact, it could easily be for exactly the same set of restrictions. I would have no compulsion in again blocking under the same criteria, should BC be unblocked, and it is apparent that BC understands that such blocks will be made. It may be that this instance will suffice in convincing BC that he does require the communities good will to allow him to edit, and he will adjust his interactions accordingly. I also understand that there are many editors who will despair at BC being given yet another chance, and wonder if all this effort is worth the result. If I were to be given the decision, I would keep BC indefinitely blocked at en-WP for the time being and revisit the situation in 3 or 4 months time and see how he is interacting on the other wikis; if there has been no socking or other disruption here, and he is having no problems at the other wikis then we can unblock BC under the same restrictions that existed when I blocked. With all respect to Ryan, Brad, Roux, and others, I really don't see the point in us trying to find a way to accommodate Betacommand - it is for BC to decide if he can adapt to the communities requirements. However, as the blocking admin I am not !voting either way (and will therefore request that my opinion is not recorded), and will accept whatever consensus is arrived at. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, this action against Betacommand seems hostile and unhelpful, preventing him from pursuing an important Wikipedia policy for which ample consensus exists. If there's some restriction in place preventing him from doing this, perhaps that restriction should be reviewed. If somebody can explain to me what harm Betacommand's recent edits have done, I might begin to understand why this very drastic action was undertaken and why it seems to have so much support in the face of its apparently disproportionate effect. --TS 12:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be appreciated if you were to read the entire discussion, and previous discussions to be found at Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand, where you would discover that a majority of editors recognise that Betacommand's intentions are good and that the policy he tries to service is valid - but it is the manner in which he works that is disruptive, and those restrictions that were placed were an effort to allow him to do the good work without the consequences of not coding/testing or reviewing the results of his scripts or work. I would also point you to Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, where the restrictions are clearly spelled out, which was worded with input from BC himself. The entire above discussion relates to the communities belief that BC violated those terms. Once you are familiar with the events of the last 18 months or so, in regard to the community and Betacommand trying to find a way to usefully coexist, I for one would be grateful for any comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your blocking notice. I'm familiar with the events of the past 18 months with respect to Betacommand.  I've asked for an explanation of how the actions of Betacommand (and not your disproportionate response to those actions) were disruptive. --TS 12:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that consciously breaking restrictions imposed on him is indeed disruptive, and that LessHeard vanU has made the right decision. I'd also like to ask you to read the discussion above where there is an overwhelming support by the community for permablocking BC.--Berig (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that that is LessHeardVanU's argument. I also agree that there is a disconcerting degree of unanimity.  The trouble is that it doesn't make any sense.  Betacommand removed some internal links to items that do not belong on Wikipedia.  They do not belong to us and nobody had made any justification for their use on Wikipedia.  If there is community support for blocking Betacommand for doing these things, then community support on this occasion needs to be reconsidered carefully.  Because on this occasion Betacommand is doing the right thing and those who are trying to hamper him are, on the face of it, doing the wrong thing.  None of the discussion above seems to address this obvious problem. --TS 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain in what possible way violating restrictions is "doing the right thing"? I am afraid I do not understand you at all.--Berig (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that your failure to recognise the disruption inherent in Betacommand not being able to comply with restrictions, which he had agreed to so as not to be indef blocked previously, is endemnic of your failure to recognise certain non or counter-productive input at the encyclopedia, which I consider these comments of yours to be another example. It is nothing to do with the validity of the proposed edits, but how they are made and the failure to accept responsibility for any problems arising. If you do not understand how Betacommand's manner is disruptive, even after reading all of the material, then it is beyond my capacity to enlighten you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might like to address the question. I certainly accept that generally the community can decide what it accepts and what it does not accept, and that it may impose restrictions on certain editors.  But here we have an editor whose current actions are not, on the face of it, in any way disruptive, and in fact are a net good for Wikipedia.    If this has arisen as a result of community restrictions, on the face of it the restrictions are at fault, not the editor.  I don't think this problem has been addressed.  I don't think this problem can be dismissed as a personal failing of an uninvolved party who fails to see the logic of blocking an editor for engaging in productive editing. -TS 13:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is very simple; Betacommand violated restrictions that were put in place so that he might continue to make good edits without causing the disruption that he had previously done. The manner in which he violated the restriction was an example of the disruption the restrictions were imposed to address. A different example would be if BC were issuing vandal warnings with the edit summary, "Fuck off, troll"; the warnings are good and appropriate, but not the edit summaries for which he had been previously warned not to do. If his response is either to ignore the concerns, or to respond with "Fuck off, troll enabler" then he would be quickly and rightly blocked - the good of warning vandals notwithstanding. This, although in far less contentious ways, is what happened here - a restriction on how many fair use warnings without someone checking over that the code was working as it was supposed, because of previous instances when it hadn't, was being disregarded because BC believed that acting toward policy was more important than adhering to the conditions that meant that there were checks to make sure that everything would work without causing disruption. He wasn't prepared to allow anyone to make sure he wasn't making the mistakes he had in the past. This was why he was blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Betacommand has apologized and acknowledged the editing restriction, but following this there still seems to be a consensus for a long block. I've never seen mentorship help a blocked editor (although it must have happened now and then). I do see hints in the above comments that there might be a consensus to review the block (and hear what Betacommand has to say about it) in two or three months. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Doing a !headcount, I don't know about that. it seems fairly split to be honest. If the block stands any future review needs to be done publicly and over time.--Crossmr (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to be reading the comments in the same way and what I meant by "long block" might not have been clear. To put it another way, I don't see any consensus for an unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is a longtime abuser, an interpreter of policy that suits his own agenda, a committed user of abusive language, unreasonable tactics, and lightening speed edits with no discussion. Warned and ignores warnings over and over again...what is the point...of bringing him back? Modernist (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I oppose an unblock under these terms, as they are too similar to those Betacommand has already shown to be unwilling to adhere to. It's clear that the community does not trust him to make any serial edits whatsoever. Accordingly, I would suppose an unblock only subject to a community restriction prohibiting him from making any serial edits (say, 10 or more similar edits within 24 hours), with the understanding that a violation of this restriction would result in a ban. This would also allow the implementation of Newyorkbrad's proposal above, which I think is sensible.  Sandstein   13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to be convinced that the disruption lies in the actions of a single editor. Betacommand's good and reasonable recent edits certainly do not merit long blocking, let alone an indefinite block.  His uncommunicative nature tends to exacerbate minor problems, however, and I think he has attracted the attention of some people who really want to cause harm to Wikipedia as well as some who disagree with the copyright policies and, unable to overturn them, set out to sabotage them instead.  I think it's inevitable that he will be driven away by this community decision-making process, and it's obvious that the arbitration committee has not felt able to tackle the twin problems of seriously defective community processes and external sabotage.  We may lose Betacommand over this, but I hope that we may also learn from it.  The cost of open editing and decision-making is that we must often live with decisions primarily driven by actors who do not wish Wikipedia well nor have its best interests at heart.  These aren't necessarily fatal problems as long as we can recognise our failures and take care not to repeat them.  This has been one such failure. --TS 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To follow up, I do think it's helpful to keep in mind that some of this is likely stirred up by the many, sundry and often sweeping takes of editors on how image copyright policy should be handled on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to letting BC back at some point, and I think that we can all agree that he's done some good in the past. However, the constant drama, incivility, and inability to follow simple community-agreed sanctions is causing more harm than good at the moment.  I hope that BC can learn from this and come back at some point in the future, but I think right now a block is the only way to stop the flow of drama.  And frankly, asserting that those of us who want to resolve this situation by actually enforcing community standards "do not wish Wikipedia well" is needlessly emotive and frankly unhelpful.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Well the arbitration committee are currently unanimously voting to decline this case, preferring those so-called "seriously defective community processes". the wub "?!"  17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose early unblock until consensus established. The apology comes less than ten hours after particularly vitriolic abuse and does not signify to me any change of heart. There's no rush to make a decision. MikeHobday (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unblock - Beta has rubbed me the wrong way every now and then but when it comes down to it, he does a lot of the dirty work nobody else wants to do. With that often comes the lynch mob looking for his head.  It is personally sad to me to see this great editor reduced to a little child forced to ask/beg for permission before doing anything of any scale, isent that against the spirit of the wiki? This is a massive scale project, sometimes things need to be done.  While some of his actions may be against the spirit of the wiki too every now and then his intentions are the best.  I have no doubt in my mind that beta does not sit down at the computer and think, "what can I destroy on the english wikipedia today?  The sad thing is based on the way he gets treated you could never tell that.  Overall, I find this terribly sad and another loss for this project.  If we keep this up, there are going to be 5 or 6  drama inducing editors with this place to themselves because nobody wants to deal with there BS. <font color="1E90FF">Chris <font color="4169E1">lk02  <font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider 14:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock in the proposed form Beta's mea culpa is too little too late and is inconsistent with his systematic refusal to recognize the previous blocks as legitimate. He writes "As for my restrictions, I honestly felt that I was within the rules and was being harassed by people" despite the fact that Ryan had told him just a few days ago that he was out of line . NFCC work is indeed thankless, it's a difficult job and it needs to be done, but it needs to be done right. Betacommand's inability to defuse situations and unwillingness to listen to others' concerns make him a liability in such a delicate area. The community shouldn't have to waste time and energy chaperoning him. The editing restrictions were crystal clear. Now I'm not saying that I'd oppose any proposal for an unblock but I certainly oppose any framework that imposes extra work on editors whose time would be better spent elsewhere. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose this unblock, or any unblock of this user at any time in the future. The level of disruption is just way too high and has gone on for way too long. He's not the only person who does image copyright work, but he's the only one who causes anywhere near this level of trouble. A net time sink and drain on Wikipedia. Every time he gets blocked he apologizes and promises not to do it again, and then he does it and we have the same discussion all over again. Enough is enough! <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose and unblock at this time. He's been blocked and unblocked many times, with no change. Who's to say that's going to immediately change? Give the user/block some time. A change has happend before with other users, lets see if Beta comes around. I have good faith in his edits that I've seen, but the incivility and breaking of the editing restrictions (that Beta agreed to) is what leads me to not support and unblock. Lets give it a rest for now and revisit it later in '09. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to an unblock. The only reason he dodged a permanent block last time was agreeing to these conditions, and a lot of effort was made in stating them clearly and unambiguously. To then flout them and threaten anyone attempting to enforce them is unacceptable. The work he does is important, but he is not the only one, and it does not put give him a free pass, or indeed an infinity of free passes. the wub "?!"  17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Under what terms would we accept Betacommand back
It seems clear that, even after his apology, the community is not of a mind to let Betacommand back yet. There is an element of a lack of confidence in Betacommand here, but there is also an element of a lack of confidence in the watertightness of the current editing restrictions. As such, a necessary element of any return must be to get the restrictions right.

I'd like to suggest the following as a starting point (additions in bold)

Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [Three editors appointed by the community] are appointed as mentors to support Betacommand in editing constructively.


 * Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus (such consensus to be confirmed by one of his mentors) supporting his actioning the request before he may begin. For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required. Any consensus for Betacommand to perform a task under the terms of this bullet shall expire 7 days after the task was first proposed.


 * Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.


 * Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.


 * Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. Where such a block is applied, Betacommand shall not be unblocked without community consensus.


 * Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. For the purpose of this enforcement, prior warnings to or blocks of Betacommand do not automatically make an administrator involved.


 * Blocks should be logged here.

Comments on the proposal by Mayalld

 * What if point 5 were changed to:
 * Should Betacommand breach any of the above conditions, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for up to a week. After 3 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Betacommand may not be unblocked except through a clear community consensus or the consensus of his mentors.
 * In any case, I'd support yours. NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a last chance move, why would we set up for the 5th and 6th times he's blocked for violating his restrictions?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Query: is it deliberate that the terms of blocking/unblocking are different for "rapid/non consensual editting" and for breach of civility? MikeHobday (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point 2. I don't get what the sentence "For the avoidance of doubt, explicit consensus for Betacommand to perform a task at this time is required" adds on top of everything else, nor do I understand what it means to change "the request" to "his actioning the request". I don't even think "actioning" should be a word. What were you trying to say? rspεεr (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, why are we trying to create these convoluted restrictions. The more detailed we make this, the more problems we get.  Why not just a three-fold restriction in simple terms:
 * Betacommand is prohibited from making automated edits using any tool such as, but not limited to scripts, bots, add-ons, or any other editing tool beyond a standard commercially availible web browser and a keyboard. Any repetitive and quickly repeated edits across a broad spectrum of articles, which any admin could construe to be made by an automated tool, shall result in the same block as if they were done that way.
 * Betacommand is banned from working in the field of image use complaince, broadly construed, and is not to concern himself with tagging images, warning users, removing images from articles, or in any way involving himself with any enforcement of the WP:IUP, WP:NFCC and related policies in any way.
 * Betacommand is on strict civility parole, and is not to demean, put down, call names, or otherwise act in a manner which creates a hostile environment for any editors, and may be blocked for the first instance of doing so.
 * These restrictions completely remove Betacommand from the types of editing which get him into trouble (bots and image use compliance) and make clear that the community will not stand for further disruption. I also propose that all blocks from this point forward are indefinate, and shall only be lifted at the pleasure of the community.  No more progressive blocks, no more warnings, no more slaps on the wrist.  Lets make this a real last chance.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Beta is unblocked (note that I oppose unblocking right now), then I quite like this set of restrictions. Simple, to the point, and as you say, removes him from the areas in which he has caused trouble. <font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel this proposal is the equivalent of throwing even more good money after bad. If a volunteer can't be successfully mentored by any Wikipedian in good standing selected more-or-less at random, then the problem lies in that person. Consider the point of Wikipedia is not therapy -- we aren't contributing our time & energy to baby-sit problem users, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Still, if the necessary three mentors -- with the needed qualifications -- can be found who don't mind spending their time on this cause, for good or bad, I will acquiese to BC's return -- with the stipulation that he knows he is on thin ice. If he steps out of line, he's history -- no warnings, no more threads about him anywhere on Wikipedia, no protests that "he's just enforcing policy". Just ban him, write-protect his talk page, & block him from IRC. -- llywrch (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If an unblock is eventually granted, the version 2.0 of the restrictions should be even simpler than version 1.0. People who believe that mentorship can solve the problem should consider that the latest violation of the restrictions came after a two-week old short block for these very same reasons (my 24h block explained to BC here, see this version of his talk page for the whole exchange), and thorough, detailed warnings from myself, Ryan, Rspeer, Is he back and Islander just a few days ago. Betacommand agreed to the editing restrictions in early September and was basically inactive until November. Yet he has since managed to get blocked 5 times while performing only about 800 edits. I would also note that these 800 edits include the ones he made to explain how each of these blocks was complete bullshit and that among the 400 edits to the article space, at least a quarter are mass-edits that go against the restrictions  Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the call for any new restrictions to be simpler, rather than more complicated, and I would normally agree with those who say "we just need to say "no automated editing". The problem is that we know from much experience that such simple terms are open to argument, and that Betacommand inevitably interprets them to mean that he can do what he wants. The key things that I believe that we need are;
 * 1) It is vital that we make it abundantly clear that Betacommand cannot rely on some pre-existing consensus that what he wants to do is in line with policy. The consensus must exist here and now both that the action should be taken, and that Betacommand should take it.
 * 2) The history of Betacommand seeing consensus that others do not demands that in any case other than clear unanimity that Betacommand can proceed, consensus should be judged by somebody else. For this reason, the proposal delegates this to the mentors.
 * 3) Given that we are already past the last chance, we need to amend the restriction to explicitly say that should a breach occur, he is right back where he is now, having to get community agreement to unblocking (I have to say that if we arrive back here again, I will not be proposing any new and imaginative solutions, I would, at that stage, be calling for a community ban. Mayalld (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel the current restrictions are fine, and were worked out to allow the maximum editing by BC under his preferred methods with the appropriate level of review before commitment to large numbers of edits - and I think the sanction enforcement criteria was also spot on. It doesn't need much if any change; and BC now knows it has teeth, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think until there is consensus for an unblock discussing new restrictions is a waste of time and effort. The problem is not the restrictions. It is betacommands behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to make a proposal that will work better than previous ones
1) Betacommand is indefinitely banned.

Presto, no more incivility problems, no more bot problems, no more automated edit fracases. There's clearly no consensus to unblock him this time and he's on what, now? His fourth or fifth last chance? Enough already. Jtrainor (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This has all gone way, way too far into "Off with his head!" territory. There's a certain... glee isn't quite the right word, but it'll do, being shown by more than a few people who should know better. It's one thing to indefblock a user; it's another to dance on the grave. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  20:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose ban Betacommand does not intend to disrupt, and intentional disruption is the only basis for a ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * does not intend to disrupt... I need clarification on that. Is he accidentally uncivil?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Incivility is a form of disruption though, so unless you're saying he's accidentally being incivil, he's already met the basis for a ban. Having said that I don't support a ban at this time. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * +1... not sure..but somehow that wasn't there when I pressed save. however unless there is a guaranteed 100% civil betacommand on the table, I wouldn't remotely support an unblock or not a ban--Crossmr (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  20:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet - I'm seeing a level of contriteness and willingness to work with others, that has generally been absent in the past. Presuming the work he's doing is valuable in some way, there may be hope. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Whilst I am increasingly leaning towards a conclusion that Betacommand has been given a quite phenomenal number of chances, and that any other editor would have been community banned months ago, I remain troubled by a feeling that his "sins" are not of the nature of deliberately trying to damage the project, but that he appears to lack the capacity to appreciate that even if he doesn't intend harm, he does harm. There cannot be indefinite extra chances, but we should do all we can to try and make this work. I think that we are already pretty damn close to having done so, but my proposal outlines a few extra things that we might do. I don't know if they will work, but if they could work, we should do them. If others judge that they won't work, I can see no alternative to a community ban. If we try them and they don't work, then a ban is where we go next. Mayalld (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet another
1) Betacommand will continue to be indefinitely blocked and will wait out the community's block until it expires or the community decides to lift the block, as all other editors on Wikipedia must do. No one is above the law and it's time that comes to light on Wikipedia. Given the many, many, many, many, many, many past times we've been through a Betacommand chapter, this is the only solution - to show the community actually means business this time. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 21:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This might not be a bad idea. Given the apparent lack of consensus for either an unblock or a full community ban.  It may be prudent to leave the indefinite block in place and revisit the issue in a few weeks if Betacommand is still interested and people are still willing to consider the issue.  Alternately Betacommand could appeal to ArbComb, but I would suggest that such an appeal would be more useful in the future (I.e. a month or more from now) rather than immediately.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is incredibly redundant. Of course he will wait out the block. Of course it lasts until the community decides to lift it. This is basic policy. Given the discussion over the block and potential unblock, no admin is going to unblock him without an extremely clear consensus to do so. This sort of thing is precisely what I meant above: we have gone from discussing how to deal with a problem to dancing on his grave and taunting him. It's ridiculous. Has he fucked up? Yes. Does he deserve a final chance, with the crystal-clear understanding that it's final? I think so. These 'proposals' of him being permanently banned, and yours stating what policy already says but applying it specifically to him, are nothing more than kicking him when he is already down. Every editor here, no matter their behaviour, has the right to at least some shreds of dignity. Whether or not Betacommand will ever be unblocked, this hounding of him and calling for his head, hammering as many nails into the coffin as possible, whatever you want to call it... it's unseemly. It needs to stop. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #36454F;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  00:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And it will stop as soon as people understand he's had a thousand second chances and has been let go on all of them. You need to get with the program yourself and stop defending him and his behavior. You're right, it needs to stop.. and it will with a strong message that the community is sick and tired of dealing with him and his blatant abuses of rules and civility laid out plainly for him to understand. The only strong message is the indefinite block. - &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 00:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have me confused with someone else. I have not defended his behaviour. I have agreed that his behaviour is problematic, and have tried to help take 'problematic' out of the equasion. Your vitriol, and that of so many other commenters here, is both unnecessary and a poor reflection on you. Besides.. what I said needs to stop is the gleeful baying of the hordes as Betacommand is taken down. So don't twist my words, thanks. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means that trying to find a way to integrate betacommand into the community is fruitless since it has failed so many times, and for some its extremely mind boggling as to why some persist at it. The disconnect was illustrated above when someone said "If it were any other user making these edits they wouldn't be blocked", well the same can be said "if it were any other user (except for maybe a couple of notable examples) they would have been banned long ago for their civility problems". There comes a point with some users where the community has to realize that regardless of X good contributions, people who endlessly spread drama on this scale need to be cut loose. It is inevitable that users with widespread civility problems are going to chase another user away and given the choice, and even without knowing who that other user is, I'd rather have them than someone who is going to chase other users away just because they lash out at anyone who disagrees with them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it's fruitless. Betacommand only gets rude when he perceives attacks; if it is possible to get him to simply disengage and have someone reply on his behalf, we'd largely have the civility issue dealt with. I absolutely agree that good contribution does not excuse incivil behaviour. I just think it's possible to rein BC in to the point where we can get the good contribs without the poor behaviour. Same would be true of some of our other notably rude people. The contribs are worthwhile, so trying to find a way to get those without the bad stuff is a worthwhile investment of our time. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  01:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So if he's problematic and (somehow?) problematic is taken out of the equa(t)ion, all I see left behind is some kind of denial. That is some sort of weird algebra I don't understand. Betacommand, defender of policy and upholder of the truth, being defended by folks going out of their way to twist policy into something unrecognizable. Somebody has to appreciate the irony of that, or maybe is gleefully rolling around in it. Early, early on, I suggested to BC (in polite conversation) that he take that turn the other cheek approach. He. Doesn't. Have. It. In. Him. And he has demonstrated that clearly over the course of two years. Wiggy! (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No.. if we remove the problems we retain the good contribs. I'm well aware that my view seems to be in the minority here, but I do think he has it in him. The problem, as I see it, is that people see the name and boom--he's automatically guilty and must! be! banned! It's a bit sad to watch. // roux  <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  01:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)