Arbcom goes after Betacommand, Another victory for the Free Kulture crowd Options

[-DS-]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

[SpiderAndWeb]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

There was a thread recently in ANI suggesting that since Betacommand refused to obey his sanctions, those sanctions should be lifted -- and this "argument" had substantial support from the usual NFCC suspects!

It'll be interesting to see if Arbcom sticks to its guns, or jumps ship when the backlash from Hammer, Future Perfect, and other Free Kulture Kooks becomes too strong...

[lilburne]

It'll be interesting to see if Arbcom sticks to its guns, or jumps ship when the backlash from Hammer, Future Perfect, and other Free Kulture Kooks becomes too strong...

Mostly stuff is uploaded simply to add bling a page. The image does not add anything to the understanding of the page, but is simply put there on the grounds that every page should have a piccy.

What possible reason could one have for adding pics of covers from LPs and CDs, or book jackets? The art work on many of them changed from year to year and often whilst the front cover may not have changed the back cover did, or the internal art work did. IOW the illustration does not even tell you whether the object you have is a first release or not. One of the few justifiable uses is Houses of the Holy where the artwork is actually discussed.

[-DS-]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

There was a thread recently in ANI suggesting that since Betacommand refused to obey his sanctions, those sanctions should be lifted -- and this "argument" had substantial support from the usual NFCC suspects!

It'll be interesting to see if Arbcom sticks to its guns, or jumps ship when the backlash from Hammer, Future Perfect, and other Free Kulture Kooks becomes too strong...

You mean the thread where "the usual NFCC suspects" correctly argued that it was pointless to restrict Beta from making more than 4 edits per minute?

[SpiderAndWeb]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

There was a thread recently in ANI suggesting that since Betacommand refused to obey his sanctions, those sanctions should be lifted -- and this "argument" had substantial support from the usual NFCC suspects!

It'll be interesting to see if Arbcom sticks to its guns, or jumps ship when the backlash from Hammer, Future Perfect, and other Free Kulture Kooks becomes too strong...

You mean the thread where "the usual NFCC suspects" correctly argued that it was pointless to restrict Beta from making more than 4 edits per minute?

Since it's pointless to restrict Poetlister from socking, might as well let him create as many socks as he wants, amirite?

[-DS-]

The Arbitrary Committee is now going after Betacommand/Δ for doing NFCC enforcement, and it looks like he'll be sanctioned this time.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here folks: just because people complain about something, it doesn't automatically become bad.

There was a thread recently in ANI suggesting that since Betacommand refused to obey his sanctions, those sanctions should be lifted -- and this "argument" had substantial support from the usual NFCC suspects!

It'll be interesting to see if Arbcom sticks to its guns, or jumps ship when the backlash from Hammer, Future Perfect, and other Free Kulture Kooks becomes too strong...

You mean the thread where "the usual NFCC suspects" correctly argued that it was pointless to restrict Beta from making more than 4 edits per minute?

Since it's pointless to restrict Poetlister from socking, might as well let him create as many socks as he wants, amirite?

That is the stupidest analogy I have ever seen.

If Beta can be trusted to make 4 edits per minute and not screw up, he can probably be trusted to make 5 edits a minute and not screw up.

However, Poetlister cannot be trusted to use one sock and not disrupt the "encyclopedia", so he definitely can't be trusted to use five and not disrupt the "encyclopedia".

[trenton]

Stupid forum software... looks like its regurgitating posts from 2008...

[SpiderAndWeb]

He *can't* be trusted to make N edits a minute and not screw up: see the several Betacommandbot incidents that got him banned in the first place.

His unbanning was conditional on him then obeying some reasonable non-botlike editing restrictions. Instead of abiding by them, he repeatedly moons the people who agreed to give him a second chance. When his behavior is brought to ANI, obviously the problem is the editing restrictions, not the editor who unapologetically and flagrantly violates them.

I agree it's hard to say why the line is at 4 edits and not 5, etc. But lifting the sanctions to reward his bad behavior is definitely the wrong approach, and 4 is as good a number as any. Why am I trusted to make 3 reverts in a day and not screw up, but not 4 reverts?

[trenton]

I agree it's hard to say why the line is at 4 edits and not 5, etc. But lifting the sanctions to reward his bad behavior is definitely the wrong approach, and 4 is as good a number as any. Why am I trusted to make 3 reverts in a day and not screw up, but not 4 reverts?

Originally it was "No automation". He couldn't handle that and switched to "simi-automated" tools. Then it was switched to "Must make manual edits". He still couldn't handle that and switched to Twinkle (while secretly creating socks). Then it was switched to an objective four edits in one minute. That, too, was too troublesome to follow, so his supporters, in consultation with him, came up with forty edits in ten minutes. Guess what? Still too hard to follow....

If only a couple of Wikipedia's critics were even half as good as Betacommand in disrupting Wikipedia, the site would have gone down in flames a long time ago.

[The Joy]

What does Betacommand want? What does he want to do to help Wikipedia?

Has anyone even asked him this?

Betacommand does strike me as the stereotypical programmer who is very brilliant at making bots and doing technical work, but lousy at communication. I think Kelly Martin or someone here once suggested partnering him with someone who could deal with the complaints and then work with Betacommand one-on-one to adjust his actions. Has anyone even suggested this type of arrangement on-wiki?

I don't necessarily like Betacommand's attitude or how he responds to people, but when I see editors storming a person's talkpage and pushing him to the brink, I feel sympathy for him. Last I checked, he did still have supporters. Perhaps they could partner with him? Maybe give him his bot back, but require his mentors to have control and access to it?

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

[-DS-]

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

Let me see now.

He started an alternate account and accidentally used it in a revert war. People decided this was "abusive sockpuppetry".

After being indeffed, he started socking to add orphan tags to articles and other such stuff. This, too, was deemed abusive sockpuppetry.

After getting his ban suspended by the Arbitrary Committee and changing his name to that triangle, he pissed off Rlevse by refusing to put "I used to be Betacommand" on his userpage.

Or, in other words, I can't think of anything.

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[-DS-]

The motion has passed.

Cue the celebrations by the Free Kulture crowd.

This post has been edited by -DS-:

[LessHorrid vanU]

Honestly, besides pissing off image-uploaders and being rude to them, what evil has he done (since no longer being an admin)?

Let me see now.

He started an alternate account and accidentally used it in a revert war. People decided this was "abusive sockpuppetry".

After being indeffed, he started socking to add orphan tags to articles and other such stuff. This, too, was deemed abusive sockpuppetry.

After getting his ban suspended by the Arbitrary Committee and changing his name to that triangle, he pissed off Rlevse by refusing to put "I used to be Betacommand" on his userpage.

Or, in other words, I can't think of anything.

Almost there, but not quite; He remained Betacommand during the one year suspension, and only changed to "little triangle" after that elapsed and ArbCom irrationally did not re-ban him or even ask the kumoooniteee if it was okay with him being allowed to continue to edit under an old set of restrictions under which he was blocked indefinitely (by me) when he violated them previously - which subsequently became the ban when his numerous appeals at ANI were declined. One of the other less than sensitive things delta then did was to place an image of a ICBM carrying submarine on his userpage with the comment "Once more I'm off to do some work", which also raised the ire of the normal suspects.

Of personal amusement is that I informed delta back in May that he was still community banned, and he needed to not violate the terms of his restrictions if he was not to have his block re-instituted; he removed my comments as "trolling" after first declaring that he was under no restrictions. You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

[RMHED]

You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

Yes, Wikipedia really does seem to disproportionately attract the mentally ill.

[LessHorrid vanU]

You have to admire his ability to ignore/forget/misunderstand anything that does not accord with his own viewpoint.

Yes, Wikipedia really does seem to disproportionately attract the mentally ill.

When I wrote that, I realised that this is the most common problem among those who edit that place - including those who are not disruptive and even beneficial to the aims of the project - and the basis of most of the criticism directed toward the encyclopedia. Most, if not all, have some form of self confirmation bias which tends to distort their perception.

Nearly everybody really believes that what they do is for the best, even when it does not quite accord with WP policies and practices, and some even feel they should have a) special dispensation, and, b) tokens of gratitude. This is the reason why "discussions" are mostly cases of various parties stating their stance, confirming viewpoints that support their own and criticizing those that are not - there is rarely any cases of people being persuaded one way or another.

Sometimes, it is amazing that articles get written well and are kept in that condition for any length of time.

[lilburne]

Sometimes, it is amazing that articles get written well and are kept in that condition for any length of time.

Can you point to a dozen?

[Abd]

Nearly everybody really believes that what they do is for the best, even when it does not quite accord with WP policies and practices, and some even feel they should have a) special dispensation, and, b) tokens of gratitude. This is the reason why "discussions" are mostly cases of various parties stating their stance, confirming viewpoints that support their own and criticizing those that are not - there is rarely any cases of people being persuaded one way or another.

Right. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that editorial decisions be made by genuine consensus, with anything less than complete agreement being undesirable, even if occasionally necessary.

But facilitating consensus process is a skill, and that process takes time, famously it requires very lengthy discussion -- though with high skill, it can sometimes be quick. Wikipedia, however, doesn't value this skill, and, my observation, actually sanctions it.

The Arbitration Committee does not seek to find the common denominator among those who come before it, the places where they can agree, building on that; rather, it typically decides which parties are right and which are wrong. Instead of building process that allows complete examination of issues, one at a time, which would require many, many subdiscussions, with consensus conclusions, it mashes it all together.

So the AC is part of the problem. Big surprise! Elected by supermajority, which is guaranteed to select, too often, for iincompetence as to dispute resolution, it elects majority-pleasers.

[RMHED]

Nearly everybody really believes that what they do is for the best, even when it does not quite accord with WP policies and practices, and some even feel they should have a) special dispensation, and, b) tokens of gratitude.

I'd say both a and b apply to Malleus and Giano. It's rather sad really, they both give soooooo much but da 'pedia just doesn't appreciate 'em! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[Abd]

Sometimes, it is amazing that articles get written well and are kept in that condition for any length of time.

Can you point to a dozen?

Come on, unfair question! Finding a dozen in the millions is too hard, but I'm sure they exist. Or, ah, existed.

Shhh... if you know of one, don't mention it! Someone will see the mention and "fix" it!

[Gandoman]

Everyone who knows Betacommand's past history will see that this case fundamentally does not have anything to do with enforcement of non-free images. The reason Betacommand is once again in trouble is, frankly speaking, that he behaves like a prick. He has carried out the exact same behaviour in relation to lots of other areas, such as username policy enforcement, external link cleanup, article categorisation etc. Look at his very first arbcom case, where he was desysopped, for examples.

The problem is always the same, that he makes extensive, rapid edits to enforce his view of a certain policy. And he may actually be in line with policy, but he does it with a rigid, no-common-sense approach that invariably draws complaints. He then gets on his high horse, says he is right according to the letter of the policy, and gets into edit-wars and insults those who have legitimate questions because they do not understand Betacommand's rigid view of policies.

It does not help when people like Hammersoft point out that Betacommand is acting "well within image policy", and fail to understand that the basic problem has nothing to do with images, it is his lack of people skills. This gives Betacommand a signal hat he is "doing the right thing", and he then continues his bad behaviour with even more confIdence.

My prediction now that Betacommand is banned from image policy enforcement: the image policy will continue to be enforced, even better than now because it will be done by people with common sense and who will be able to respond to queries by confused users in an adequate way. Betacommand will find some other aspect of policy that he will mechanically enforce with the same lack of common sense, and the same belligerent attitude when someone dares question his actions. I expect another huge ANI thread about Betacommand in a few weeks' time, and it will eventually go all the way to another Arbcom action. The problem will continue until it is recognised that Betacommand is fundamentally incapable of working in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, and he is banned for good.