Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 29 October 2009

Note from Betacommand's mentor: If you have a concern or problem with something Betacommand has done, and/or you feel he has broken his editing restrictions (outlined here), please make an effort to discuss the situation with Betacommand and/or one or both of his mentors, Hersfold (talk · contribs) and MBisanz (talk · contribs), before taking or requesting administrative action. Taking this step can greatly reduce the drama levels normally associated with this sort of concern, and is much more likely to come up with a result that leaves everyone happy. In severe cases, blocks may of course be administered prior to warnings as per the blocking policy, however it is the responsibilities of the assigned mentors to oversee Betacommand's conduct. Outside of egregious violations, it would be preferred that discussion be attempted first, or that requests for administrative action be directed to the mentors. Thank you. Hersfold 03:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

NPA1 and NPA2 - please comment on content not contributor

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, I was just explaining that because you did not follow instructions you were reverted I was not making any PAs. β 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote me a note saying I cannot read. Obviously I can read and you know it, or you would not have written that for me to read. So, what was the point of saying something about me personally, that I cannot read? It was a personal attack. Once. Twice. :::You did it to me before with another bot and were warned:

"I see no proof other than your word that your anything more than a 13 year old child who is attempting to make a point by forum shopping, leaving uncivil comments, and attacking others. The information that the bot is adding is reliable. you have yet to prove otherwise. So unless you can actually make a logical statement and prove that the content and database the bot will be using is wrong (besides a few typos) I see no reason for your behavior. βcommand 02:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ahem! Enough, Betacommand! You've been warned about this before. This is not the way for you to interact with people. Stick to the actual 'bot issue at hand (Goodness knows! There's been enough diversion from the core focus of the discussion, already.), and do not give us your guesses about who participants in the discussion may be. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out the personal attack in either of those links? –xeno 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to, "need to stop being so aggressive, ... Also you need to read the instructions and follow them properly if you want to comment on this page."

"How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions and since then there have been adjustments to the wording of the closure templates."

I "cannot follow directions?" What kind of newbie biting garbage is that? It's called a personal attack.

Telling someone they need to "read" the discussions is only a comment about me, particularly as my post indicates I did read and was attempting to follow the discussion. There was nothing aggressive in my post that BetaCommand responded to with "stop being so aggressive." and my aggression is my behavior. Betacommand can comment on my concerns, but not on my behavior. No personal attacks is clear and useful: stick to the content, not the contributor. And it's clear and useful for a reason. We're writing a behavior.

This user has attacked me before and been warned about it. It's off topic and doesn't belong here. If he/she can't find the topic, he/she should stay out of it.

I not only followed the directions, the BAG member changed the directions to something else to justify the reversions, and Betacommand accuses me of being illiterate but writes something for me to read. So, it seems he/she knows I can read, but is just posting insults, otherwise known as personal attacks 1 and 2. That's enough. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I never said you could not read only that you had not read the instructions. I stand by that position unless you want to say otherwise. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section where the instructions at the time of your edit. yet this edit by you is not a new section. That means that instructions where not followed. As for my previous comments you claimed to be an expert and I responded by making a statement that there was no proof of that and that you could be not that you where. I was making a rebuttal to your claim where their was a lack of proof in the content of your dispute. β 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And you provide a link with a comment that shows I did read the instructions and attempted to follow them, so you just attacked me because you think I'm a newbie and that makes me fair game, especially if you can get an administrator to up the drama alongside you? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No I see where you did not follow instructions. Please review WP:SECTION. β 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Telling you to read the instructions is not the same as saying that you can't read. And I have to agree with Betacommand that you have been quite aggressive in the various issues I've seen you take up in the last several months. –xeno 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of being "aggressive" provide diffs. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Telling someone to stop being aggressive and review instructions is constructive advice, not an attack. I will grant that some portions of Beta's comments would have been better left out (emphasis, "/sigh"), however I do not see that there was any intention to attack you here. Hersfold 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. "you where reverted because you cannot follow directions" Telling someone they cannot follow directions is perfectly civil discourse in Betacommand's world. It's not in the regular world. So, now that Betacommnad has two administrators defending his/her right to say that I "cannot follow directions" I'm sure I'll be blocked. Voila! Success! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that saying that someone "cannot follow instructions" is not very constructive, instead Betacommand should have said that you simply did not follow instructions. Perhaps Betacommand would like to amend this unfortunate wording. –xeno 17:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did follow the directions. In fact, I followed how it had been done in a prior BRFA that was revisited by someone just adding a comment below the archived area. I not only followed directions, a BAG member decided the directions were not appropriate or for some reason changed the directions after I proved my inability to follow them.

There's no civil place, except now it appears on wikipedia, where saying "you cannot follow directions" is considered anything but a rude personal remark. Now I have a couple of administrators wikilawyering Betacommand's right to say it. This will be no service to Betacommand or wikipedia, encouraging his/her right to personally attack editors. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I agreed immediately above that it was not a constructive thing to say. –xeno 17:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There might have been other ways to tweak how I said that, but it was the clearest method. Please take your crusade elsewhere wikipedia is not the place for you to rant about bots. Your recent aggressive behavior and forum shopping is getting tiring. How many places are you going to raise the same subject? Pick one place and have the discussion there. β 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, what you agreed immediately was that I've been quite aggressive. It was a little later, your next post, in which you said it was unconstructive. In other words, you supported Betacommand's attack against me first, and telling me I'm aggressive without any diffs is a personal attack. Provide diffs, show me you're saying it to constructively improve my interactions with other editors? No, that's not how you used it. Immediately you supported Betacommand's personal comments about me, whatever you call them. It was only later you moved on to saying his comment was unconstructive.

Right now you're just wikilawyering a defense of his actions. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On the above, "The Arbitration Committee has decided that the community ban of User:Betacommand be provisionally suspended subject to your unconditional acceptance of and full compliance with the following non-negotiable terms':

You agree (i) to a civility restriction and (ii) to not engage in any form of wikilawyering, broadly interpreted."

1. ...;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline 'while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

IMO,[REDACTED] administrators wikilaywering on Betacommand's behalf to support him/her saying that I "cannot follow instructions" violates the letter and spirit of "Provisional suspension of community ban: Betacommand." That's my wikilawyering opinion on Betacommand's calling me a "13-year-old" and saying I "cannot follow instructions" and being supported in this. The ArbCom decision is very clear. I should not even be having this discussion, because the situation should never have arisen.

Don't worry, I'm done here. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)