Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3

Case Opened on 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Case Closed on 01:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * (initiator)
 * notification
 * notification

Statement by ʔ (formerly Have mörser, will travel)
There has been a proposal (at WP:VPR) to relax the community restrictions on Δ as to allow him to remove deleted images from articles. One administrator, Chris Cunningham, has expressed the following concern:

I've discovered that Δ is subject to a separate ArbCom-imposed ban on "making any edit enforcing the non-free content criteria, broadly construed" (imposed at Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2). What does ArbCom think about this community-proposed task—removal of deleted images? Does it fall too close to the NFCC-enforcement ban, or not? 17:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment. I agree with Risker and SirFozzie on the issue that the current community sanction is drama prone because of the varying interpretations of "pattern" in the community. Just search for this key word in the ANI and VPR threads, and you'll see what I mean. I was reluctant to open a full case just because of that though. There are also some editors who think the community sanction is completely unnecessary now, not just ambiguous. It's true that programming skills can progress quite a lot in three years. [By the way, I asked for my account to be renamed away from "ʔ".] Uʔ (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: The 9+ proposals to amend or clarify the community restriction in addition to the 20 task requests which follow the requirements of the current restriction, as Hammersoft correctly points out below. Uʔ (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Δ
The reason that Hammersoft is making this request is that at the time I was blocked. There was a discussion less than 30 days ago where my edits where deemed acceptable, yet Tristessa de St Ange out of the blue (over three weeks afterwords) blocks me for the exact same edits that I was making 30 days ago and according to AN where acceptable. I really wish arbcom would grow a spine and put a stop the this harassment in general, but I know they dont have the balls to make a stand and actually support those of us who actually care about the pedia. Instead they choose to play politics and popularity games like this is High School. I have been doing missing/deleted cleanup for years without any issues, hell I have made over 8,000 edits of general cleanup, earning several thank you's and a barnstar or two. However the Hell Hounds choose to talk and harass every edit that I make. I know for a fact that if I had a different username other than what I have I know people would be heaping praise and thank you's without any issue. However because I am Betacommand it doesnt matter what the hell I do, everything is wrong, and I must be banned. Hell I know I could retire this username and quietly return, amass 20,000 or so edits, run for RFA and pass with flying colors if I could forget my past. However because there where issues years ago people feel that I shouldnt be allowed to edit. CBM is a classic example of that, it doesnt matter how productive I am, I get bitched at. Removing deleted/missing images is not NFCC enforcement. Its just going back and cleaning up after lazy admins who delete files without first orphaning (which is the recommended practice). I have pushed a feature for tracking these pages into mediawiki because I know so few people who do this kind of work, and that maintaining a personal list is difficult. Category:Pages with missing files is my brain child and I know few people who bother with this cleanup and instead leave articles with upwards of 20 deleted/missing files on a regular basis. I dont know about you but I find that extremely ugly and gives us a bad perspective when readers come across an article with those broken links. But I know my comments here will be ignored just like they are every time I come to this committee. The odds are that this committee will not have a backbone and sanction me further, instead of realizing that I have been the victim of stalking and harassment for years and actually do something to ensure that those users who improve the pedia are protected, instead of pandering to those who haunt the drama boards and do very little to improve the peda. Just let me know how badly I am going to be ArbFucked™ this time. ΔT The only constant 02:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than a very few minor errors it has been very productive and frictionless. I experimented with google books, which didnt work out. But other than that its been very quiet and Ive even earned a barnstar for my gnoming/cleanup. If anyone other than myself where making these edits there would be zero drama. ΔT The only constant 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to arbs

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting further statements, including input from Δ. Apropos of nothing, I have serious doubts as to whether "ʔ" is a useful username from the point of view of helping editors communicate with one another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Δ, your comments are obnoxious. I am thick-skinned enough not to hold this against you in addressing this request, but it is time you realized that there is no virtue to obnoxiousness. As for the substance of the request, I would appreciate some input regarding whether Δ's recent edits are useful or not&mdash;or put differently, if they would be controversial or problematic in any way if anyone other than Δ were making the edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is Hammersoft proposing all these proposals on behalf of Δ rather than Δ propose them himself? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, my reply would pretty much echo Brad's - are the edits in and of themselves been going harmoniously or has there been friction? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think a clarification will do no good here, we may need a full case to look at the situation, ditch the current sanction (as seen, it has enough holes to drive a Mack Truck through, causing aggravation on both sides), and come up with a fresh idea (whether that is to restrict Beta fully from this kind of thing, or to come up with a tightly worded restriction). SirFozzie (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sven: I don't think the situation is settled enough that putting it into a holding pattern and then dropping it in the laps of the Committee and its new members in January is a particularly welcome (or indeed plausible) idea. If we do take this as a full case, I think anyone who is unable to judge this fairly will recuse. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @WikiDemon: To answer your questions: What mandate does the Committee have in this case? Well, being the last step of Dispute Resolution on Wikipedia does help. And with no offense intended towards the people who voted on the restrictions in the past (both community and Committee), the situation here is about as UNstable as possible, (the fact that I looked at the existing wording and found it had holes you could drive a mack truck through, depending on your interpretation. So, we're going to look at it, tighten and clarify as needed, loosen and remove as not needed. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A few points. First, Tristessa, could you please log your block here? Secondly, I am inclined to agree with SirFozzie; the case, and the sanctions involved, date back over three years, and even the provisional suspension of the community ban dates back over two years. Throughout the intervening two years, there have been recurrent issues from all sides. I think this is going to take more than a mere clarification to resolve. Risker (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion
The Arbitration Committee declines to issue a clarification of Δ's current restrictions, and instead will direct the clerks to open a full case, tentatively entitled Review of Δ sanctions. While this case is open, Δ is directed to cease all large scale editing tasks of 25 edits or more, be they fully or semi-automated. All edits must be fully scrutinized for technical issues before submission.

For this motion, there are 15 non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.


 * Support
 * 1) I wish there was an easier way to accurately refer to Beta (that is still accurate). It is a pain to have to use the special symbol Δ all the time. We need a blank slate to review these issues, and I think until we can do a formal review, it would be easiest for Δ to cease these tasks rather then risk ongoing sturm und drang. Needless to say, we would look at all parties involved, and not just the current patchwork hodge podge of restrictions on Δ. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm really not happy at the prospect of an arbitration case over this matter, but the fact is that Δ is currently under a complicated mishmash of variously interpreted community sanctions, and is the focus of much dispute around many the edits he does (which are also just as varied and impossible to qualify as a whole).  It is not entirely clear either how much of those disputes can be attributed to Δ himself.  Untangling this to try to solve the problem will indeed require more than a simple clarification or motion work.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with this approach - the issues here are too complex for a clarification, and are worthy of a full case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Not unpredictable, and part of the reason I advocated dealing with this particular problem last go 'round. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Worth a full review.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk )
 * 6) There have been so many actions and changes in the period between the original case, the community ban, and the present matter that it is time to review what makes sense and does not make sense, and to give some more solid guidance to all involved in this situation.  I would suggest that the task related discussion currently occurring at the Village pump be included as "evidence" (perhaps putting it on a subpage of the VP and providing a link would be sufficient) to help sort out the current community perceptions.  Risker (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Conditional support, the condition being that one or preferably two arbitrators step forward to be hands-on drafters here, as the case pages are likely to require some supervision and the case will require careful, detailed review and analysis of the evidence and history. Given that I drafted the decision in Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, whose principles were well-received but whose remedies patently did not solve the underlying problem, I'd prefer for other arbitrators to do the main drafting this time around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Existing sanctions are useless for anything but drama - there has to be a better way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) I am happy to be a drafter for this case.  I would prefer to be a secondary drafter, but am happy to be the lead drafter.  I've had a fairly 'involved' relationship with Delta, but it hasn't been onesided; e.g. unblocking him when the technicalities were being used against him and also asking him to stop recently (User_talk:Δ/20110701).  If Delta wants me to recuse, I will. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sven; I wasnt sure, and I can appreciate that Beta/Delta may be concerned about whether I am biased or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, it makes sense to review this. As NFCC features heavily, and is the most controversial aspect, hat would be helpful would be an analysis of some of this editor's edits. Some numbers would be more useful than allegation/counter-allegation, so say the 250+ link removals on 30 June 2011. Such an analysis could be broken down into percentage of files that were false positives (ie there was already a rationale); percentage of files that were deleted as actual vios; percentage of files that were only deleted because they'd been orphaned but had a rationale; percentage of edits reverted etc.   Roger Davies  talk 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Neutral


 * Comments
 * Before I actually support this, I think we need to be answering AlexandriaB's question re: the SPI bot that she has pointed out above. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally state that the direction above would only apply to new tasks, existing bots and such that have already been approved and are in use currently should not be affected. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

''Clerk note: the Arbitration Committee has requested that this case be named 'Betacommand 3'. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)''

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Community sanctions
2) The community has the authority to impose sanctions (such as editing restrictions or bans) on any user whose edits are a detriment to the encyclopedia.
 * Passed 16 to 0, 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Review of community sanctions
3) As stated in §1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users subject to sanctions imposed by the community.

In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.
 * Passed 15 to 0, with 1 abstention 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Recidivism
4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.
 * Passed 15 to 0, 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand
1), previously known as and under several other names , has participated in Wikipedia since November 2005.  During that time, a substantial portion of his editing has consisted of repetitive minor edits, some or all of which have been performed via the use of automated or semi-automated editing tools.
 * Passed 16 to 0, 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation of Betacommand's edits
2.2) Numerous concerns have been raised in regards to Betacommand's editing, including both concerns with the substantive content of the edits as well as concerns with Betacommand's ability and willingness to communicate the purpose and nature of the edits to other users. In light of these concerns, the community has determined that some of Betacommand's editing is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and has imposed a series of sanctions on Betacommand's editing.
 * Passed 16 to 0, 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand ignored sanctions
3.1) In 2011, Betacommand has violated all of the community imposed sanctions. During the year Betacommand has:
 * 1) often performed tasks without approval from the community *
 * 2) often saved edits without reviewing them for problems *
 * 3) often performed tasks at edit-rates exceeding four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time *
 * 4) been blocked for incivility once (another block for incivility was overruled)
 * Passed 10 to 3, 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Failure of community sanctions
4) The sanctions imposed by the community have failed to effectively resolve the various concerns raised regarding Betacommand's editing, leading ultimately to the filing of this request for arbitration.
 * Passed 15 to 0, 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing communication problems
6.1) Although Betacommand was counseled on communication issues during the prior cases, his manner and style of communications during disputes remains problematic. Whether intentional or not, Betacommand's communications in the current matter have frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike.
 * Passed 12 to 0, 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community sanctions superseded
1.7) The Arbitration Committee determines that the existing community sanctions on Betacommand were a valid response by the community to prior problems with Betacommand's editing, and that Betacommand was required to abide by those sanctions if he wished to continue editing. However, given that interpretation and implementation of those sanctions has led to ongoing disputes, the community sanctions are superseded by the more straightforward remedies provided for in this decision.
 * Passed 12 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Betacommand banned
2.1) Betacommand is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.
 * Passed 10 to 6, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal of ban
3) After one year has elapsed from the date of his ban, Betacommand may request that the ban be lifted. As part of any such request, Betacommand shall be required to submit a plan outlining his intended editing activity and demonstrating his understanding of and intention to refrain from the actions which resulted in his ban.  The Committee shall present this plan to the community for review and comment prior to any modification of Betacommand's ban.
 * Passed 15 to 0, 01:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)