User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:14, 30 December 2008

Removal of images

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Betacommand,

I see that you have removed quite a few images from several articles about football teams. While you may be correct in removing these images from the articles, it seems that this violates your community-imposed restrictions, specifically the part that says "Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin."

I therefore suggest you drop a note at WP:VPR about this, to make sure that there is community consensus for this image removal task. Is he back? (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. non-free images lacking rationales should be removed. if an image has no valid rationales it may be deleted. Please review policy as it has consensus. β^_command 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, we're well aware of those policies, and we know they have consensus. What doesn't have consensus is for you to perform a single task on multiple pages more than 25 times without first proposing it at WP:VPR, regardless to whether or not you're working in line with other policies. Please, follow the community imposed restrictions, or be prepared for consequences. _Talk Islander 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont give me that line of BS. I dont need to get consensus for for something that already has it. If an admin cannot follow policy and blocks me for enforcing policy expect an arbcom case, Im getting sick of admins who cannot follow policy themselves. My actions are 110% within policy, so stop attempting to prevent policy enforcement. β^_command 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please dont give me that line of BS..." - that should earn you a block for breaching your civility parole, though clearly I'm not going to enforce it as I'm involved. You need to learn that, due to your poor behavior, the same community that by consensus devised these policies has forbidden you from carrying them out en-mass without at least attempting to gain consensus to do so at WP:VPN. You have not attempted to gain such consensus, therefore you are knowingly breaching your community imposed restrictions - please stop. _Talk Islander 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont need to gain consensus for something that already has consensus. If you disagree with that go read policy, policy has consensus thus my actions have consensus. Please review what CIVIL means, my statement was not uncivil. β^_command 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, you've been far more incivil in the past, but in my opinion that remark was incivil. Regarding the edits: the whole point here is that it's about interpretation. If you were to go and remove 50 pornographic images from children's articles where they don't belong, then I honestly can't see that anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone have any right to challenge you over it. However, the NFCC are vastly open to interpretation; however concrete you try and convince anyone they are, they're really not. Therefore, under your community imposed restriction, you must first gain consensus that you have interpreted the policies correctly. _Talk Islander 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent removals are 110% within policy and non-debatable. All non-free images must have a rationale for each usage. (WP:NFCC#10c) if they dont have a rationale they either need deleted or removed. β^_command 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true - you've been removing images without rationales instantly , which is incorrect. Such images should be tagged for deletion, both on the image page and the article, so as to give editors a chance to add one. If, after seven days they still don't have a rationale, they then get deleted. You mustn't just remove the images straight away - you must give editors from those subject areas the chance to add rationales. _Talk Islander 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which is correct procedure. the only time an image gets seven days is if the actual image is up for deletion. Please review WP:NFCC#Enforcement An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added. and An image on which non-free use is claimed that is used in no article (criterion 7) may be deleted seven days after notification. β^_command 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, Islander is right. The community-imposed restrictions are crystal clear and this is not about right or wrong edits. The restrictions about repetitive tasks are unambiguous: you know this full well. You can take this to ArbCom if you want but I suggest you first consult with Ryan Postlethwaite, Jennavecia and CBM who worked out these restrictions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need consensus to make my edits, I have that, now get over it and please stop harassing me the both of you. β^_command 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, there's an ongoing RfC on the subject so the least you could do is wait until that discussion is over. This is exactly why I blocked you recently: you're doing these mass edits during a debate on the subject. This is a sure way to bring more drama. Like I said, if you think I'm harassing you, just consult with the three admins who drafted your restrictions and ask them if you're working within the limits they set or not. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reasons that I removed those image have zero to do with that RfC. I removed those images due to not having a rationale. have a problem with that? get over it and read the policy. My actions have consensus and are backed with 110% of policy. β^_command 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Betacommand. He's acting perfectly within policy. He's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, you need to ask permission if you're doing a repetitive task of more than 25 edits - here you have done close to 50. It would be punitive to block you now, but in the future please post to the village pump to request permission. It doesn't matter how uncontroversial you believe the task is, you've got to request permission for anything over 25. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is frankly absurd. Zillions of editors here do tons of repetitive tasks all perfectly in line with policy without raising so much as an eyebrow. Going after Betacommand over something that is perfectly within policy is simply a witch hunt and nothing more. This is like a police officer pulling over a man racing his in-labor pregnant wife to the hospital and making him wait while he conducts a back ground check. It's absurd and taking any action against Betacommand for this would be WP:BEANS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no, it's like a man who has had several convictions for reckless driving who gets a final chance from the judge: that he will be allowed to keep his driving license if he agrees to drive safely and never exceed the speed limit whatsoever. He then gets pulled over for doing 5 mph over the limit and complains that "anyone else would just have been given a warning". These restrictions were put in place because of severe disruption that Betacommand has caused with mass edits and were a compromise that even he agreed to. If Betacommand wants to lift the restrictions, he can ask for them to be reviewed, instead of just brashly breaking them and being rude about it. Is he back? (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to remember, of course, is that afaik Betacommand actually agreed to these restrictions as they stand. To violate restrictions that you're bound to is one thing; to violate restrictions that you are bound to and agreed to is another entirely. _Talk Islander 14:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to go after someone for doing something perfectly inline with policy is absurd. In fact, it's a borderline WP:POINT violation. What he was doing was HELPING the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider the grief that Beta has caused the project in the past, it's not in the least absurd. The problem is that Beta feels that he is always acting in line with policy, which is not always true (I'm not talking about this particular case here). In that respect, Beta has unfortunatley lost the trust of the community, and so was placed under community restrictions that he agreed to. If such restrictions are in place, then they should be followed at all times. Beta thought that what he was doing was right, but unfortunatly we can no longer trust his judegment of that. He should therefore have asked permission to do what he was doing, and more than likely have been granted it in this case. _Talk Islander 00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly interested if he's supposedly lost the trust of the community. He's an editor here. What he was doing was perfectly in line with policy. If what he was doing is so, then there's no reason to censure him. Having to beg to do something good for the project is ridiculous. I'm surprised he hasn't quit the project altogether with these absurd restrictions. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's an editor here who's under restrictions. He needs to ask to make automated or repetitive edits whether he thinks they're good or not, because he always thinks his edits are good. And Betacommand didn't consider the restrictions absurd when he agreed to them, so cut the hyperbole. rspεεr (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Im still going to enforce policy. if you dont like it tough, any admin attempts to block they will be going to arbcom. my edits are un-disputable, they are within policy. Im getting sick of the constant harassment. if there was any doubt and not 110% within policy I would take this to the VP. But the edits are not in question, either stop the harassment or I will be filling an arbcom to stop it. I know the restrictions and I am following them. β^_command 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holding you to your word isn't harassment. You've done a run about 80 of these, contrary to your promise not to make large runs of automated edits. All you have to do is take it to the village pump and ensure that it really is as uncontroversial as you think. rspεεr (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these are not automated, and if you could read policy you would see that my edits are 110% within policy if you cannot get that dont bother wasting my time. β^_command 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it kill you to be truthful for once? Of course they're automated. That's why they're making little wikicode fixes as they go, and why one of the edit summaries ends with "using" as if it were going to be followed by the name of the automated tool. But then, in the last agreement, we stopped trying to establish when your edits were actually automated because you'd just deny it like you're doing now, so the agreement was that you wouldn't do repetitive edits. And these are. There wasn't an exception for edits that were "within policy" -- ideally everyone's edits are within policy. rspεεr (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trolling, read policy, and quit harassing me. you have no proof of the bullshit your accusing me of. yeah I have JS tools that assist in find/replace and other cleanup tools. either block me for enforcing policy, so I can take you to arbcom and make a fool of you or stop the harassment. β^_command 04:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I notification

I started an AN/I discussion about this thread. rspεεr (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yet more harassment. sigh. β^_command 04:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Beta. I'm posting this here because I want it to be clear that this is a sincere question (not an attempt to gang up on you).
You've expressed the belief that your restrictions don't apply to the edits in question (because said edits are backed by policy). To clarify, what types of edits do the restrictions apply to? In other words, when are you required to "propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion"?
Thanks in advance. —David Levy 08:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any set of edits that a does not have a clear preexisting consensus. Fighting vandalism is one example of something that would not need VP approval. their is clear consensus that it needs reverted. some of these should have been taken to VP. but edits like this where im removing images without rationales where a clear policy and consensus exists there is no need for VP as the removals cannot be disputed. β^_command 08:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more blatant abuse of admin tools. you actions are without merit, and are asinine. so enforcing policy is now a blockable offense? this is yet more unfounded bullshit. I expect a unblock and full apology as my actions are perfectly within policy. this is just more fucking harassment by the same group of users attempting to get me banned. its been happening for over a year now. constant stalking of my edits and baiting. When it come to the point a user cannot enforce foundation level policy without being blocked we have a problem. as it stands no one can dispute that my edits where correct and within policy, yet because Im being constantly stalked I am not indef blocked for enforcing foundation level policy. β^_command 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I can imagine it's the last thing you're bothered about at the moment, but given your restrictions I'd be quite happy to run the 10c partial compliance code under my account (or a separate one). I don't think anyone can argue that the edits themself are useful to the project. Cheers, Black Kite 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I have requested arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an arbitration clerk, this is a reminder that if you wish to provide comments, you may either e-mail one of the clerks or post your comment in a section which will be re-posted to the RfAr page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your pending unblock and offwiki

[1] This must be discussed and reach consensus on wiki this time, sorry. rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the Committee to pass the restrictions you yourself agreed to follow as a binding motion. If you'd like to reply to the RFAR, I'd be happy to copy/paste a proper on-wiki response over for you. rootology (C)(T) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to apologise for the intemperate remarks I have made both recently and in the past. They do nothing to help the situation. To everyone I have been rude to, I am sorry. As for my restrictions, I honestly felt that I was within the rules and was being harassed by people. The consensus is obviously that I was not within the rules. So from now on, anytime I am starting a run of more than 25 edits, I will get consensus for each one at VPR first, regardless of what policies support my actions.

I understand that the block will not be lifted immediately, but I ask that the community consider unblocking me. Roux has undertaken to keep an eye on my edits and will have an admin block me immediately if I cross the line again. β^_command 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Rootology.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 I've asked the Committee] to pass the restrictions you yourself agreed to follow as a binding motion. If you'd like to reply to the RFAR, I'd be happy to copy/paste a proper on-wiki response over for you. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
+I wish to apologise for the intemperate remarks I have made both recently and in the past. They do nothing to help the situation. To everyone I have been rude to, I am sorry. As for my restrictions, I honestly felt that I was within the rules and was being harassed by people. The consensus is obviously that I was not within the rules. So from now on, anytime I am starting a run of more than 25 edits, I will get consensus for each one at VPR first, regardless of what policies support my actions.
+I understand that the block will not be lifted immediately, but I ask that the community consider unblocking me. Roux has undertaken to keep an eye on my edits and will have an admin block me immediately if I cross the line again. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)