User talk:Betacommand/20090101
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Re-visiting your most recent block
Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Re-visiting_an_indefinite_block_-_Betacommand
New straw poll
You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
User page
Hey, I've had to lock your user page for the time being, until the warring parties either stop, or, your block duration is changed, sorry. SQLQuery me! 09:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}can you please restore my userpage? βcommand 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think having his userpage with that template on it is harassment. That template is usually left for permanently banned accounts. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know, WP:WRONG and all, I was just stopping the edit war. If any other admin wants to change it to something else, that's up to them. I don't mind. SQLQuery me! 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Betacommand needs to focus on fixing what got him blocked, rather than focusing on fixing his user page. If he takes care of the former, the latter will take care of itself. He has shown some contriteness in recent comments. That might be a good step towards reinstatement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball, let's be clear here. Regardless of how contrite Beta becomes, there will be a mob of users out to lynch him the moment he does anything other than edit his userspace. Given how much harassment he has suffered, I'm shocked he's remained as civil as he has. I personally would have snapped a long time ago. A good step towards reinstatement would be to get ArbCom to call of the lynch mob, via giving Beta some basis on which to defend himself. He can't even so much as touch a key on his keyboard around here without getting his head handed to him on a platter. Placing that notice on his userpage is pure harassment and unhelpful. Otherwise, it's just beating the crap out of him until his morale improves. Hardly productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've avoided responding directly to you because you seem intent on using the most inflammatory language possible, but really, you're not helping here at all. I supported an unblock proposal at the last AN/I discussion (and still do support it, for whatever that's worth), so don't take this the wrong way, but accusing the community of harassing BC and making wild claims ("he can't edit outside his userspace without being lynched" (paraphrased)) doesn't help here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Baseball, let's be clear here. Regardless of how contrite Beta becomes, there will be a mob of users out to lynch him the moment he does anything other than edit his userspace. Given how much harassment he has suffered, I'm shocked he's remained as civil as he has. I personally would have snapped a long time ago. A good step towards reinstatement would be to get ArbCom to call of the lynch mob, via giving Beta some basis on which to defend himself. He can't even so much as touch a key on his keyboard around here without getting his head handed to him on a platter. Placing that notice on his userpage is pure harassment and unhelpful. Otherwise, it's just beating the crap out of him until his morale improves. Hardly productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Betacommand needs to focus on fixing what got him blocked, rather than focusing on fixing his user page. If he takes care of the former, the latter will take care of itself. He has shown some contriteness in recent comments. That might be a good step towards reinstatement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know, WP:WRONG and all, I was just stopping the edit war. If any other admin wants to change it to something else, that's up to them. I don't mind. SQLQuery me! 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Other editors expressing legitimate concerns based on repeated (repeated) offences and abuses hardly constitute a lynch mob. Suggesting that stifling other editors to facilitate BC's premature return is patently counterproductive. Placing that notice on a user page is standard operating procedure in dealing with blocked editors as near as I'm aware and to do otherwise in this situation would constitute another instance of exceptional treatment forced on the community by BC's apologists. He earned it, he can wear it. I don't get that he understands that it is part of the price you pay and that trying to deny or disguise that all this has happened and the current circumstance is just another example of defiant behavior. Everybody needs to just go away and let the thing chill out for a while. Wiggy! (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Putting a template on a person's userpage that places them in the category of temporary wikipedians when they've contributed so much to the project is incredibly insulting. There's no other way of interpreting that, and it's NOT standard procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- What template are you talking about? I don't see one either here or on the user page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- This version. rootology (C)(T) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Right. It was removed, but the one user is griping about it as though it were still there. That's where the confusion came from. Thanks for explaining. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's right, because I'm fucking clueless and read text in linear fashion, responding in linear fashion. I'm not a certified idiot for nothin'. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's good to have a certificate. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Other editors expressing legitimate concerns based on repeated (repeated) offences and abuses hardly constitute a lynch mob. Suggesting that stifling other editors to facilitate BC's premature return is patently counterproductive. Placing that notice on a user page is standard operating procedure in dealing with blocked editors as near as I'm aware and to do otherwise in this situation would constitute another instance of exceptional treatment forced on the community by BC's apologists. He earned it, he can wear it. I don't get that he understands that it is part of the price you pay and that trying to deny or disguise that all this has happened and the current circumstance is just another example of defiant behavior. Everybody needs to just go away and let the thing chill out for a while. Wiggy! (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm blanking the userpage altogether for a day or two so that the discussion can focus on more important matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great compromise, thanks! SQLQuery me! 21:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, good idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A week and a half
Well, it's been a week and a half since you were blocked. Do you think you're ready to be unblocked on the condition of never ever ever running another bot/script again, for real this time, upon pain of a truly indefinite block? This seems to be, pretty much, the only condition that anyone who is amenable to unblocking you would find acceptable. If the answer is yes, let's do this. If not ... the status quo continues. --Cyde Weys 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cyde, I think you missed Wikipedia:AN#Re-visiting_an_indefinite_block_-_Betacommand. Consensus is to let the block stick for now and revisit this in a few weeks. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's not my reading of it. And with indefinite blocks, lack of consensus does not default to leave the block on forever. Indefinite blocking is an entirely different concept than banning, which Beta hasn't been. So I am willing to unblock him, pending that he satisfies my conditions. --Cyde Weys 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do us all a favour and leave off until the thing has thoroughly chilled out. Wiggy! (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per Wiggy, and Pascal.Tessons understanding of the most recent discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looks chilled off to me. Betacommand hasn't done anything since the block, which was a week and a half ago. What exactly is your proposed metric on when it's been long enough? --Cyde Weys 21:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have, being blocked... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a much longer length of time than he's previously been blocked for. I'm all for an escalating series of blocks, but going from a couple of days to indefinite is quite the stretch. Two weeks will be long enough. Of course, it all depends on his answer to my proposition — if he doesn't agree to these new rules (which have absolutely no ambiguity to them) — then I can't help him. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read this? You'll find the reasons for the indef block there (in fact someone pointed out that based on his recent blocks, he should actually be banned for hours equating to over 3000 years, which obviously isn't going to happen, but still you get the idea). Also, he made clear that he has no intentions to abide by his restrictions, what makes you think the next time will be any different? Yeah. The shitstorm will begin again either way, it's just that leaving off for a little while gives everyone a much-needed break. --.:Alex:. 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- CW, you need to go back and re-visit your original premise. The conditions that were being discussed are not limited to a restriction on running bots/bot scripts. There is a civility parole in place. There are concerns about the appropriateness of provocative edits being made in the midst of on-going debates. And there were efforts by some admins to negotiate terms related to these and other problems and a clearly stated need to have BC genuinely abide by those terms instead of stickhandling around or ignoring them (again). I'm not sure you want to wade into that. This is not the one dimenensional problem your opening statement suggests it is. Just leave it go until the community is prepared to accept the return of a demonstrably civil and contrite BC. Everybody involved needs some breathing space. Let them have that. Wiggy! (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read this? You'll find the reasons for the indef block there (in fact someone pointed out that based on his recent blocks, he should actually be banned for hours equating to over 3000 years, which obviously isn't going to happen, but still you get the idea). Also, he made clear that he has no intentions to abide by his restrictions, what makes you think the next time will be any different? Yeah. The shitstorm will begin again either way, it's just that leaving off for a little while gives everyone a much-needed break. --.:Alex:. 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is a much longer length of time than he's previously been blocked for. I'm all for an escalating series of blocks, but going from a couple of days to indefinite is quite the stretch. Two weeks will be long enough. Of course, it all depends on his answer to my proposition — if he doesn't agree to these new rules (which have absolutely no ambiguity to them) — then I can't help him. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- He wouldn't have, being blocked... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do us all a favour and leave off until the thing has thoroughly chilled out. Wiggy! (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's not my reading of it. And with indefinite blocks, lack of consensus does not default to leave the block on forever. Indefinite blocking is an entirely different concept than banning, which Beta hasn't been. So I am willing to unblock him, pending that he satisfies my conditions. --Cyde Weys 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh ... well Beta, I tried, but it looks like the hole you dug yourself into this time is really deep. And Wiggy, I am aware of the civility issues — his immediate response to the latest round of blocking was a series of clearly unacceptable personal attacks on the blocking admin. By the way Beta, here are some words you may need to excise from your vocabulary:
- "Blatant" — Way overused, especially when the actions you're describing aren't. It isn't a meaningless modifier.
- "Harassment" — When every single other person on the wiki pretty much agrees that you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong. It isn't harassment, it's community consensus.
- "Within policy" et al — Perhaps true, but completely missing the point of the sanctions on your use of bot tools.
Maybe I'll come back in a week or two to see if the community's mood has changed. And Beta, it might help to at least respond to some of these people — civilly — here on this talk page. Otherwise people won't think you've changed your attitude; they'll just think you've been inactive for awhile. --Cyde Weys 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cyde, I for one have no objection to the idea of revisiting the block down the road but it's probably a good idea to prepare this carefully. There'll only be marginal support for an unblock if dust hasn't been given time to settle. There is considerable anger at BC right now and that's unlikely to allow for reasonable discussion. Actually, if you've read the discussions surrounding the latest block and the latest proposal for an unblock, the considerable anger on the side of BC supporters is also preventing calm and rational discussion on the topic. As I noted in the AN thread above, any future unblock proposal should probably be prepared carefully by a small group of cool-headed people prepared to defend the idea and the terms of the unblock. Otherwise, we'll just hit a
brick walldrama wall. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)- and if I may, Cyde, I'm not sure what you mean by "That's not my reading of it". It seemed pretty clear to me that there was no support for unblocking him right now. As for the length of the block, you note that the present block has gone on for a "much longer length of time than he's previously been blocked for". But in fact he was blocked at least once for a full week. And at the risk of repeating myself, the indef block came after four blocks in the previous two months. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think what many are looking for is some sort of cooperation from Betacommand's side. By not saying anything, he gives the impression that he is just laying low until the block expires and will go back to his old ways when unblocked, as he has done previously. Is he back? (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this is unfair. We can't expect BC to look at his talk page 20 times a day while he's blocked. Nor can we ask him to spend his time making apologies to collect unblock points. He's smart enough to understand that there is no going back to his old ways no matter how long he lays low. In return, we should respectfully leave him alone until we can actually offer him a clear proposal for an unblock. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, that is wise. However, if and when a proposal for unblock is offered, it is my opinion that Betacommand should make a firm commitment to the terms on-wiki. In earlier cases, discussions with Betacommand about unblock conditions took place on IRC, but this time I believe an on-wiki record is necessary. Is he back? (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, this is unfair. We can't expect BC to look at his talk page 20 times a day while he's blocked. Nor can we ask him to spend his time making apologies to collect unblock points. He's smart enough to understand that there is no going back to his old ways no matter how long he lays low. In return, we should respectfully leave him alone until we can actually offer him a clear proposal for an unblock. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment
I was attempting to start over, people may or may not agree with the statement Im about to make, Ive been harassed, this has been going on for over 18 months now. I started to get sick of the harassment so I created a fresh account so that I could contribute without being harassed. under User:Canis Lupus I have 10,716 edits with no issue. I attempted to start over can anyone blame me for trying to get away from the drama? all I want to do is go back to doing what I do best, improving the encyclopedia, something i was doing quite well as Canis Lupus and before the whole non-free mess. βcommand 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)