Betacommand blocked by Neil Options

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Looks like Neil has blocked Betacommand.

Beta screaming harassment aside, I'd have to say it's a pretty poor decision.

It stems from (guess what) tagging of fair use images that may violate NFCC. Beta tagged images for CSD, which was permissible at the time. Cbsite reverted the addition of the tags. Beta reverted back, this continued, until Beta took the images to IFD. Which was also reverted, by Cbsite.

Now, by any stretch of the imagination, Cbsite was vandalizing (removing tags and removing a xFD listing?) Beta's been blocked for edit warring, which I suppose in this case, must mean "preventing vandalism". Even still, I'm not quite sure what's supposed to be accomplished. There was the spat with the CSD tags, but even then, Beta then took it to the next venue up in resolution, and was reverted. I mean seriously. If he thinks there a problem, he's following the Wikipedia prescribed process and being punished for it.

Also to note, it seems that this entire thing is being (unintentionally?) aggravated by Sceptre, who has added a new exemption to the CSD criteria, which confused poor Neil, until McZMBride pointed out his error. In addition, Sceptre has closed the IFDs for insufficient arguments, even though he knows perfectly well that Beta is currently blocked and can't edit that page. (Well maybe not, as I can't guess given the lack of editing, but he posts to ANI in the block thread a minute later...)

Scepy. Might want to revert those changes, because quite frankly, that's kicking a user when he's down.

Messed up on timestamps, as Sceptre pointed out.

This post has been edited by CrazyGameOfPoker: Wed 16th July 2008, 4:30pm

[Neil]

Blocked for 72 hours - you make it sound indefinite.

The confusion over the CSD thing (entirely my fault) is why I reduced the block from a week to 3 days.

Betacommand was told to stop edit-warring over his particular reading of WP:NFC - which is a wobbly and hazy guideline at the moment - after his last block, which was only ten days ago, because his removals and tagging were doing little other than generating edit war after edit war.

He resumed edit warring over non-free / fair use images, so got blocked again.

[DevilYouKnow]

Just Beta's way of getting attention. Seriously, if you have a whole subdivision of ANI devoted to you, how is that not being disruptive to the encyclopedia?

[everyking]

Blocked for 72 hours - you make it sound indefinite.

The confusion over the CSD thing (entirely my fault) is why I reduced the block from a week to 3 days.

Betacommand was told to stop edit-warring over his particular reading of WP:NFC - which is a wobbly and hazy guideline at the moment - after his last block, which was only ten days ago, because his removals and tagging were doing little other than generating edit war after edit war.

He resumed edit warring over non-free / fair use images, so got blocked again.

It's past time for him to be indefinitely blocked. He's consistently uncivil, aggressive and disruptive, and his bots seem to cause constant problems.

[Firsfron of Ronchester]

It's past time for him to be indefinitely blocked. He's consistently uncivil, aggressive and disruptive, and his bots seem to cause constant problems.

His bot did keep [[WP:DABS]] up-to-date, though. That was nice.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Blocked for 72 hours - you make it sound indefinite.

The confusion over the CSD thing (entirely my fault) is why I reduced the block from a week to 3 days.

Betacommand was told to stop edit-warring over his particular reading of WP:NFC - which is a wobbly and hazy guideline at the moment - after his last block, which was only ten days ago, because his removals and tagging were doing little other than generating edit war after edit war.

He resumed edit warring over non-free / fair use images, so got blocked again.

If I make it sound indefinite, it's because it's infinitely longer than it should be. Quite frankly, Beta was right to readd the CSD tags. An independent admin would have judged the merits of the tag, and made action. Cbsite isn't an admin, so it was inappropriate for him to remove those tags. If a third user came in to readd the tags because of improper removal, would that be wrong? If there's been one consistently defended exception to edit-warring, it's reverting vandalism. The official vandalism policy has forever specifically mentioned removal of administrative tags (which CSD tags fall into of course) as something that's vandalism.

Even then, he stopped adding the tag, and took them to IFD. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and quite frankly, it's a big improvement to Beta's SOP to go to IFD...and you've negatively reinforced that. Congrats

Just Beta's way of getting attention. Seriously, if you have a whole subdivision of ANI devoted to you, how is that not being disruptive to the encyclopedia?

That was the side effect of running a bot to fix image tagging, which is the reason that all issues with him get so blown up. He really does fairly standard stuff in a contentious area, but he's such a name after the Bot stuff, that even an attempt to abandon his name got blown up into a master sockpuppeting ring hunt (of Beta, Quera B., Beta2, and BetaBot).

[prospero]

Just Beta's way of getting attention. Seriously, if you have a whole subdivision of ANI devoted to you, how is that not being disruptive to the encyclopedia?

That was the side effect of running a bot to fix image tagging, which is the reason that all issues with him get so blown up. He really does fairly standard stuff in a contentious area, but he's such a name after the Bot stuff, that even an attempt to abandon his name got blown up into a master sockpuppeting ring hunt (of Beta, Quera B., Beta2, and BetaBot).

You are forgetting that both the sock and his main account were responsible for weeks of bad DEFAULTSORTS edits. It was a colossal waste of time for those who had to go clean up that mess, as was attested to at the time. Especially egregious since he was being informed early on that his script (arguably a bot IMHO) was fucking up but ignored it. Now that is vandalism.

This post has been edited by prospero: Wed 16th July 2008, 3:49am

[guy]

his bots seem to cause constant problems.

Then you stop his bots. What are the bureaucrats doing, allowing him to have duff bots?

[Neil]

His bot is stopped. It was indefinitely blocked on May 17th. Betacommand has been prohibited from using any kind of automated tool to make edits.

[Moulton]

You can talk, you can bicker, you can bicker, you can talk...

Talk About Heavy Users of BetaCommand

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

You are forgetting that both the sock and his main account were responsible for weeks of bad DEFAULTSORTS edits. It was a colossal waste of time for those who had to go clean up that mess, as was attested to at the time. Especially egregious since he was being informed early on that his script (arguably a bot IMHO) was fucking up but ignored it. Now that is vandalism.

I didn't forget that, but it was the NFCC issues that led to the creation of WP:AN/B , not the DEFAULTSORTS.

And guy, as Neil has said, BetacommandBot has been since May 17th, mostly because of the sockpuppetting thing, and partly over the default sorts issue. His bot really isn't an issue any more, it's just that NFCC issues are landmines.

[Bob Boy]

The people trying to hold the line on non-free content are quixotic. Wikipedia has pretty much gotten to the point that any justification at all is accepted for using other people's copyrighted stuff. I would imagine other people trying to enforce those provisions will soon give it up as pointless, or they'll likely end up blocked as well.

[Sceptre]

Looks like Neil has blocked Betacommand.

Beta screaming harassment aside, I'd have to say it's a pretty poor decision.

It stems from (guess what) tagging of fair use images that may violate NFCC. Beta tagged images for CSD, which was permissible at the time. Cbsite reverted the addition of the tags. Beta reverted back, this continued, until Beta took the images to IFD. Which was also reverted, by Cbsite.

Now, by any stretch of the imagination, Cbsite was vandalizing (removing tags and removing a xFD listing?) Beta's been blocked for edit warring, which I suppose in this case, must mean "preventing vandalism". Even still, I'm not quite sure what's supposed to be accomplished. There was the spat with the CSD tags, but even then, Beta then took it to the next venue up in resolution, and was reverted. I mean seriously. If he thinks there a problem, he's following the Wikipedia prescribed process and being punished for it.

Also to note, it seems that this entire thing is being (unintentionally?) aggravated by Sceptre, who has added a new exemption to the CSD criteria, which confused poor Neil, until McZMBride pointed out his error. In addition, Sceptre has closed the IFDs for insufficient arguments, even though he knows perfectly well that Beta is currently blocked and can't edit that page. (Well maybe not, as I can't guess given the lack of editing, but he posts to ANI in the block thread a minute later...)

Scepy. Might want to revert those changes, because quite frankly, that's kicking a user when he's down.

Do your research first:

My contribs:

CODE

# 01:31, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ (→{{CSD Images-media}}Images and media:  makes it an illegible speedy criterion per rule for criteria #1: objectivity (null edit to complete summary))
# 01:29, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ (→{{CSD Images-media}}Images and media: adding criterion 8 as an exception - it's practice that NFCC#8 failures go through IFD in nearly all cases, and the wide spectrum of opinions...)
# 01:27, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→Cbsite, BetaCommand and NFCC. Block review/block request.: re)
# 01:25, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→Cbsite, BetaCommand and NFCC. Block review/block request.: re)
# 01:24, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 15‎ (→Image:Julian.barratt.boosh.live.jpg: close)
# 01:23, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 15‎ (→Image:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg: close)
# 01:22, 16 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 15‎ (→Image:Mudkip1.jpg: sd)

Beta's block log:

CODE

# 05:57, 16 July 2008 Gimmetrow (Talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Betacommand from IP block exemptions to (none) ‎ (Original problem resolved, no longer necessary)
# 01:39, 16 July 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) blocked "Betacommand (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies - further edit-warring over NFC images)
# 01:38, 16 July 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Betacommand (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (changing duration)
# 01:26, 16 July 2008 Neil (Talk | contribs) blocked "Betacommand (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Disruptive editing: Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Remedies - further edit-warring over NFC images)

[Maju]

I just can say that I am immensely glad that s/he has been stopped finnaly. That bot was extremely abusive in all senses as well as unhelpful (and his master was too).

I have no problem with removing copyrighted images when necesary but getting an unauthorized buggy bot not just to tag but also to delete images just because they were presumpt (often just remotely presumpt, as bots are plain idiots: they cannot discern a thing) is against policy, common sense and every concept of decency.

Deletions should always be approved and excuted by people, admins specifically, after careful pondering of the reasons behind, not just because a blind bot has tagged something on some far-fetched theory of some nutty individual on how policy should be applied.

This is not a "quixotic" but a corporativist crusade. And I don't want even to speculate about the possible reasons behind that behaviour.

In general, I'm glad that bots are being scrutinized more carefully. Some bots are useful of course, but bots just meant to edit-warrying are counter-producing.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Do your research first:

You are correct, I messed up on some time conversions. My mistake. I would still recommend to reopen, or at least postpone the IFDs, as Beta admitted that he was working on your issue with them. when he got blocked.

I just can say that I am immensely glad that s/he has been stopped finnaly. That bot was extremely abusive in all senses as well as unhelpful (and his master was too).

I have no problem with removing copyrighted images when necesary but getting an unauthorized buggy bot not just to tag but also to delete images just because they were presumpt (often just remotely presumpt, as bots are plain idiots: they cannot discern a thing) is against policy, common sense and every concept of decency.

Deletions should always be approved and excuted by people, admins specifically, after careful pondering of the reasons behind, not just because a blind bot has tagged something on some far-fetched theory of some nutty individual on how policy should be applied.

This is not a "quixotic" but a corporativist crusade. And I don't want even to speculate about the possible reasons behind that behaviour.

In general, I'm glad that bots are being scrutinized more carefully. Some bots are useful of course, but bots just meant to edit-warrying are counter-producing.

Well...

1. As Neil said, it was only for 3 days.
2. Bot really wasn't buggy when it came to tagging (I've said it in the past, but aside from some unexpected syntax, the only time it really broke was caused by a change to pywiki, iirc. Now buggy in other respects? True in a few cases.
3. The bot never did any deletions. People did.
4. Not quite sure corporatist would be the right term, since the NFCC mandate is from an external body than en-wiki...and by that I mean "the people actually in charge".
5. What are you talking about with bots meant to edit war?

[Pumpkin Muffins]

Blocked for 72 hours - you make it sound indefinite.

The confusion over the CSD thing (entirely my fault) is why I reduced the block from a week to 3 days.

Betacommand was told to stop edit-warring over his particular reading of WP:NFC - which is a wobbly and hazy guideline at the moment - after his last block, which was only ten days ago, because his removals and tagging were doing little other than generating edit war after edit war.

He resumed edit warring over non-free / fair use images, so got blocked again.

It's past time for him to be indefinitely blocked. He's consistently uncivil, aggressive and disruptive, and his bots seem to cause constant problems.

I've never had any problem with BCB, and it's nailed every single FU image I've ever posted. But then again, I used to do that tagging and admin stuff manually before BCB was around.

On the other hand, Betacommand is a creation of the community. He's young and needs some guidance. His rougher behavior should never have been tolerated, and many editors have enabled his tantrums. I think this never would have come about if he was give clear and firm feedback on what behavior was appropriate. Then again, that would have been impossible with people like David Gerard lowering the standards of behavior into the mud.

Just Beta's way of getting attention. Seriously, if you have a whole subdivision of ANI devoted to you, how is that not being disruptive to the encyclopedia?

BCB does a thankless job. No matter who does it, they'll get shit on. I think anyone who did this manually before BCB came along can understand the value of Betacommand being the lightening rod and taking all the heat. However, maybe Betacommand isn't the best person for the job.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Wed 16th July 2008, 5:34pm

[Maju]

I just can say that I am immensely glad that s/he has been stopped finnaly. That bot was extremely abusive in all senses as well as unhelpful (and his master was too).

I have no problem with removing copyrighted images when necesary but getting an unauthorized buggy bot not just to tag but also to delete images just because they were presumpt (often just remotely presumpt, as bots are plain idiots: they cannot discern a thing) is against policy, common sense and every concept of decency.

Deletions should always be approved and excuted by people, admins specifically, after careful pondering of the reasons behind, not just because a blind bot has tagged something on some far-fetched theory of some nutty individual on how policy should be applied.

This is not a "quixotic" but a corporativist crusade. And I don't want even to speculate about the possible reasons behind that behaviour.

In general, I'm glad that bots are being scrutinized more carefully. Some bots are useful of course, but bots just meant to edit-warrying are counter-producing.

Well...

1. As Neil said, it was only for 3 days.
2. Bot really wasn't buggy when it came to tagging (I've said it in the past, but aside from some unexpected syntax, the only time it really broke was caused by a change to pywiki, iirc. Now buggy in other respects? True in a few cases.
3. The bot never did any deletions. People did.
4. Not quite sure corporatist would be the right term, since the NFCC mandate is from an external body than en-wiki...and by that I mean "the people actually in charge".
5. What are you talking about with bots meant to edit war?

1. What the heck is that NFCC thing? Isn't that a corporative agency to make sure everybody pays even for looking at a CD - and then doesn't pay to artists anyhow? In my country it has a different name but basically people know it as the copyright mafia (and ignore them as much as they can, quite logically).

2. Bot was buggy and idiotic. You can't tag a logo for deletion because logos are automatically under some special category. The bot was absolutely ignorant of all that stuff. You cannot ask people to "properly" tag things that had been uploaded prior to some guideline reform according to that new guideline without providing for long transitional periods and a decent instruction manual. For me it was obvious corporative indiscriminate terrorism. It may have removed a couple of illegitimate images but mostly deleted perfectly valid stuff.

3. You are right that the bot did not delete (my bad) but some mad admins followed the bot automated criteria without further thought anyhow, what is about the same.

4. Edit war: the bot was created to edit war with editors on copyright paranoia. It did not matter if you removed the wrongly tag 100 times, the bot came again and added it. You complained: no use.

5. I am just delighted about betacommandbot being supressed, if that's been the case (I may have understood wrongly). I don't care much if the author has been blocked or not, as long as his pernitious toy has been supressed. Betacommand was (probably still is) a WP:DICK and he deserved some sort of admonishing or penalty but that's not so important anyhow. The bot was the real problem.

6. Are you betacommand? No need to reply to this but you act as if you were him/her.

This post has been edited by Maju: Wed 16th July 2008, 9:51pm

[Newyorkbrad]

1. What the heck is that NFCC thing? Isn't that a corporative agency to make sure everybody pays even for looking at a CD - and then doesn't pay to artists anyhow? In my country it has a different name but basically people know it as the copyright mafia (and ignore them as much as they can, quite logically).

2. Bot was buggy and idiotic. You can't tag a logo for deletion because logos are automatically under some special category. The bot was absolutely ignorant of all that stuff. You cannot ask people to "properly" tag things that had been uploaded prior to some guideline reform according to that new guideline without providing for long transitional periods and a decent instruction manual. For me it was obvious corporative indiscriminate terrorism. It may have removed a couple of illegitimate images but mostly deleted perfectly valid stuff.

3. You are right that the bot did not delete (my bad) but some mad admins followed the bot automated criteria without further thought anyhow, what is about the same.

4. Edit war: the bot was created to edit war with editors on copyright paranoia. It did not matter if you removed the wrongly tag 100 times, the bot came again and added it. You complained: no use.

5. I am just delighted about betacommandbot being supressed, if that's been the case (I may have understood wrongly). I don't care much if the author has been blocked or not, as long as his pernitious toy has been supressed. Betacommand was (probably still is) a WP:DICK and he deserved some sort of admonishing or penalty but that's not so important anyhow. The bot was the real problem.

6. Are you betacommand? No need to reply to this but you act as if you were him/her.

A reasonable introduction to how these processes are supposed to work can be found in the "principles" section of the ArbCom decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2.

Fixed Wikilink - Guy

[Bob Boy]

1. What the heck is that NFCC thing? Isn't that a corporative agency to make sure everybody pays even for looking at a CD - and then doesn't pay to artists anyhow? In my country it has a different name but basically people know it as the copyright mafia (and ignore them as much as they can, quite logically).

2. Bot was buggy and idiotic. You can't tag a logo for deletion because logos are automatically under some special category. The bot was absolutely ignorant of all that stuff. You cannot ask people to "properly" tag things that had been uploaded prior to some guideline reform according to that new guideline without providing for long transitional periods and a decent instruction manual. For me it was obvious corporative indiscriminate terrorism. It may have removed a couple of illegitimate images but mostly deleted perfectly valid stuff.

3. You are right that the bot did not delete (my bad) but some mad admins followed the bot automated criteria without further thought anyhow, what is about the same.

4. Edit war: the bot was created to edit war with editors on copyright paranoia. It did not matter if you removed the wrongly tag 100 times, the bot came again and added it. You complained: no use.

5. I am just delighted about betacommandbot being supressed, if that's been the case (I may have understood wrongly). I don't care much if the author has been blocked or not, as long as his pernitious toy has been supressed. Betacommand was (probably still is) a WP:DICK and he deserved some sort of admonishing or penalty but that's not so important anyhow. The bot was the real problem.

The above is an excellent representation of the typical feelings of fair use uploaders at Wikipedia - they all talk and act like this. There are so many of them that the free content advocates can really never hope to win.

[DevilYouKnow]

The above is an excellent representation of the typical feelings of fair use uploaders at Wikipedia - they all talk and act like this. There are so many of them that the free content advocates can really never hope to win.

Don't blame the uploaders - the fair use policy at English Wikipedia is hopelessly subjective and vague. Uploaders get mad when they add in a fair use explanation, and anti-fair-use editors like BCB dispute it with little or no explanation (and with BCB in particular, a "you're so stupid" attitude). It also doesn't help that the fair use policy keeps moving the goal posts back on fair use images. An image that may have had a valid rationale two years ago may no longer be valid. The uploader, typically unaware of any change in the policy, receives the "your image is about to be deleted" from an image tagger and think WTF???

The fair use defense to copyright infringement (at least in the U.S.) isn't meant to be a bright line rule, but rather a framework to help judges analyze the facts of each case and reach a conclusion. Wikipedia goes a step further and adds completely subjective nonsense like NFCC#8 (the image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" ), which pretty much guarantees further wars between uploaders and image taggers. Everyone has an opinion about what NFCC#8 means. Honestly, no one is wrong in their subjective interpretation, and problems ensue. Fair use is an intentionally ambiguous legal doctrine. This problem will hound Wikipedia forever, unless they simply want to ban all fair use images.

This post has been edited by DevilYouKnow: Thu 17th July 2008, 1:23am