HersfoldArbClerkBot (talk | contribs) m Bot updating evidence length information (toolserver) |
HersfoldArbClerkBot (talk | contribs) m Bot updating evidence length information (toolserver) |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
# {{BCD}} was recently banned from NFCC enforcement by an arbcom motion. Rather than getting the point that the should do something else, {{BCD}} is skirting the restriction, ignoring its spirit. For example, very recently he prepared [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%CE%94/Sandbox_4&oldid=458240284|this list of files] for other people to delete; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=458240440] for his comments making it clear the purpose is NFCC enforcement. A reasonable editor would have interpreted the arbcom restriction as a sign to get as far away from NFCC work as possible. |
# {{BCD}} was recently banned from NFCC enforcement by an arbcom motion. Rather than getting the point that the should do something else, {{BCD}} is skirting the restriction, ignoring its spirit. For example, very recently he prepared [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%CE%94/Sandbox_4&oldid=458240284|this list of files] for other people to delete; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=458240440] for his comments making it clear the purpose is NFCC enforcement. A reasonable editor would have interpreted the arbcom restriction as a sign to get as far away from NFCC work as possible. |
||
==Evidence presented by Δ== |
== Evidence presented by Δ == |
||
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=1|diff=0|link=0}} |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 16:01, 3 November 2011
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by ASCIIn2Bme (formerly Have mörser, will travel and ʔ)
Current word length: 278; diff count: 0.
First, let me say that I don't feel qualified nor am I particularly inclined to judge an extensive edit history like that of Δ which antedates my own by many years. So, I'll limit my comments to my own experience interacting with Δ. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Impressions from my brief encounter with Δ
I came in contact with Δ in September when he added some Google Books links and publication dates (month, day) to some citations found in an article on my watch list. Although I was not aware of Δ's editing restrictions at the time, the edit did look fairly automated to me and a bit indiscriminate as the links were to the book cover pages, and may of those GB entries did not have preview available to me. Δ's edit was pretty similar to what http://reftag.appspot.com/ produces in that respect. The talk page discussion, which quickly involved more than two participants, can found at User talk:Δ/20110901#Google Books links and subsequent sections; it is a bit disorganized probably because several other editors decided to complain and did not scan the previous sections before commenting there. A few days later, there was an AN thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Δ (Betacommand) and community restrictions opened by someone else, and which seemed to be a general concern about use of [semi-]automated tools by Δ. As I had looked at a few other edits of Δ in the mean time, and because yet another editor had complained about the Google Books links while AN thread was ongoing, I was rather dissatisfied and concerned about Δ's prolonged non-consensual edits in that respect. However in the AN thread, Δ agreed to cease adding those links, so the mattered was settled amicably. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Recap of Betacommand's history
Betacommand's accounts
- BetacommandBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Bot account, indef blocked in June 2008 to enforce sanction against running bots.
- Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Sockpuppet account, indef blocked in May 2008. For a period of time, Betacommand was banned from Wikipedia, and used this sock account to evade the ban. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry.
- Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Previous main account, not used since 2010. Extensive block history.
- Betacommand2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Alternate account, not currently blocked, not used since June 2008. Previously blocked for misuse of alternate accounts.
- Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Current main account, used since 2010. Extensive history of short blocks.
- Δbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Current bot account, used to update Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
Those new to this problem may find reading the block logs useful. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand, the centralized ANI section for Betacommand-related problems. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Sven Manguard
Current word length: 351; diff count: 1.
June 2011 Incident
Almost all of my involvement with Delta and AN/I threads involving Delta was in June 2011. The incident in question (I am referring to multiple threads in a short period of time as one incident) began in the middle of June and continued through to the middle of July. The first AN/I thread was "Questionable block of Δ" (archived here), which was followed by "Inappropriate edit warring by Δ over NFCC issues" (archived here), and concluded with several more threads, beginning with "User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions" (all archived here). All three of those discussions should be read in full, as it's just too easy to get a distorted picture without doing so.
I'll be the first to admit that I was not a model of civility during these discussions. I believed, and still maintain, that Delta was wronged over the course of this incident (the initial block was overturned as a bad block, for starters). I stand behind the comment I during the discussion observing that the repeated blocks for minor offenses was serving as a de facto indef ban, something that the community was not in agreement over (diff).
As to my other comments, while I still believe that threads against Delta, Damiens.rf, and Future Perfect (all NFCC inforcers) all in a short amount of time is suspicious, had this discussion happened today, I would not have pegged it to a group of bad faith actors working together to take out NFCC enforcers. Looking back, that part of the statement was pretty off. I also owe Crossmr an apology for being outright hostile to him back then.
Finally, I'll note that about halfway through the discussion, I realized that it was becoming a massive flame war, and I didn't like it, or how I looked in it. I dropped out halfway through the discussion and haven't really made any Delta related comments since, until the Request for Clarification was started. This whole thing is uncomfortable, and so unless someone has specific questions/comments for me, I will now follow it only from afar. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidence presented by CBM
Current word length: 355; diff count: 5.
I was first involved with Betacommand/Δ in 2008, when I was on an "ad-hoc committee" to write sanctions to keep Δ from being banned (see Ad-hoc committee proposal).
My argument in this evidence will be that Δ has consistently failed to "get the point" about the problems with his editing and about the restrictions he is under.
- Compare this diff of his from 2008 [1] with this one from last month [2]. In both, he fails to acknowledge why people are complaining about his edits. The opinion he expresses is "I am right, and the complaints are meritless". But if the complaints were meritless, they would have subsided long ago.
- In the 2008 discussion linked above, other editors, including me, were forced to defend Δ's edits. Similarly, in the recent block, another editor was forced to defend Δ [3] while Δ made inflammatory remarks [4]. My point is that this is a pattern, not a one-time event. Much more evidence of this could be provided.
- The original edit restrictions, written by the ad hoc committee, were meant to be accommodating, so that if Δ was careful he would never get close to breaking them. But he responded by pushing the restrictions to the limit. The recent collection of 2,000 unapproved "cleanup" edits is one example of this. The edit restriction said he could not do more than a certain number of edits in 10 minutes, with the clear point being he should never get close to that number. But Δ took this as permission to push right up to that limit. For another example, see the "article has an image" edits from September 4 [5]. Δ has not demonstrated that he is able to work within an accommodating set of edit restrictions.
- Δ was recently banned from NFCC enforcement by an arbcom motion. Rather than getting the point that the should do something else, Δ is skirting the restriction, ignoring its spirit. For example, very recently he prepared list of files for other people to delete; see [6] for his comments making it clear the purpose is NFCC enforcement. A reasonable editor would have interpreted the arbcom restriction as a sign to get as far away from NFCC work as possible.
Evidence presented by Δ
Current word length: 1; diff count: 0.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.