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.

Please maintain reasonable standards of civility on the ArbCom voting pages. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you're going to vote for me now, right? Yours always, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, I have blocked you for a violation of your civility parole, detailed here. The edit which lead me to block you can be seen here, in The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's ArbCom election poll. You have been told time and time again to remain civil, and time and time again you have failed to do so. You have had three recent civility-related blocks at 24 hours each, therefore I am blocking you for 48 hours. Please think carefully about your behaviour, and refrain from making any comment anywhere whatsoever before you have thought carefully about how others will view that comment. _TalkIslander 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove fair use rationales from image pages such as Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I will remove useless text that does not meet the requirements of a non-free usage rationale. β^_command 08:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When the use of an image is clearly within policy but the rationale is missing or not good enough, then please help write the rationale instead of deleting the image. When the image is overused or shouldn't be used at all, then remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

please review the non-free content policy. the person wishing to include non-free content policy must make a case for inclusion. β^_command 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project though. Noone has any duties. When the image use is clearly allowed, why not help out instead of enforcing the more bureaucratic details of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If I knew the subject(s) better I would be in a position to write a rationale. but because I dont know the subject writing a proper rationale would take about an hour or more of research. (as a proper rationale is not a template). β^_command 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is that difficult. Sometimes it's a simple standard case. I was actually more referring to images you removed recently, rather than the sound clip above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

NFC should not be used on multiple times across multiple pages see WP:NFCC#3. also if it has no rationale for a usage it does get removed from usages without rationales. β^_command 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant, there are standard allowed use cases. For example a logo in the infobox in the article about a company. That usually doesn't require much consideration, just a standard rationale. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. β^_command 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I have a watchlist, I can see your edit to ANI. You don't think they won't look at your bad-faith edits here, on WVNS-TV (a page I monitor and have edited) and on the NFCC talk page. Your personal attacks above will come into question too. I might be on probation at the moment, but you got more to loose than I do. For now, you can talk to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:57

Hi Beta. I have blocked you for 24 hours for not respecting the terms of the community-imposed restrictions, specifically:

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.

The mass-removal of images on Ohio State Buckeyes football team articles [1] clearly violates this restriction. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yet again people abuse the admin tools. All I was doing was bringing one image into compliance with policy. there was a discussion about that image and it was agreed that it was over usage so I removed its usage. β^_command 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta, it's not like the terms of the community restrictions are ambiguous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

but my actions where a result of a consensus of a discussion, which makes your block bullshit. β^_command 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that there was support for removing the images. The point is that the edit restriction specifically asks that you either propose the task on WP:VPR or let somebody else handle it. By the way, the discussion you're referring too on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content began on December 10 at 15:23 and you started the mass removal at 15:49. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

then your block has no grounds. please remember the five pillars and that admins blocks are not punitive. rather preventive. Personally I see this as a reason to block me for unr-related issue over at Grant Wood. please remove your unfounded block. β^_command 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I supported your position on the Grant Wood issue. Community restrictions are in place because of recurrent problems with your automated edits and recurring problems with your handling of conflict situations. They are in place to prevent such problems, they are clear, you are aware of them and they should be respected. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

yet you violated the principals of adminship in this situation, I was making a single image conform to policy. which per policy should be done, also by the time I edited those pages the images where not displayed. all I was doing was a cleaning up after a template edit made by vipersnake. β^_command 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You have every right to request an unblock. All I'm saying is that you violated the term of the restrictions and that you made this mass-edit (which, btw, I ultimately agree with) just 26 minutes after a discussion on the topic had been initiated. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You also performed 4 reverts on Grant Wood.[2][3] The exception to 3RR states: "Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy." There is a FU rationale on the image page, so it is not an unquestionable violation and something else that merits a block. Ty 08:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that a non-free rationale does not make an image compliance with policy. the image in question is a clear violation. β^_command 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of policy, but it is not an unquestionable violation, so is not exempt from 3RR. You need to post it on WP:NFCR, not edit war, which is likely to lead to being blocked. Ty 00:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFC which states, as unacceptable use: "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)". Beta is clearly correct in this case. --MASEM 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

#4 makes an exception for iconic images. The spirit of that is relevant in this case. Also read the top of WP:NFC, which is a guideline and "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Guidelines are not set in stone. Ty 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

1. 4 which reads "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)."? Last I checked, "American Gothic" was not a war image. And yes, I'm aware that there's the common sense exception, but this is a case that is explicitly listed as a "not acceptable" use, not a grey area. --MASEM 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious? War is obviously just used for the purpose of an example. The key point is where an image has become iconic, it may merit being used in relevant places. Common sense and the occasional exception applies to all the contents of the guideline. That is why it is in a box at the top. We're here to build the best quality encyclopedia, which requires a bit of WP:UCS, not to rigidly enforce rules in circumstances, where they don't help to increase quality. Ty 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: "If an image is used for more than depiction purposes such as critical commentary on the image itself, then it may be acceptable outside of an article regarding the image itself."[4] That is Betacommand's own essay, so by his own words such usage is not unquestionably a violation. Ty 07:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But their was little critical commentary, and I did not write that essay, I just rescued it from deletion. their is not enough support on the article to warrant the inclusion of the image. β^_command 13:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• When are these silly restrictions going to be lifted? This really is quite silly. I conducted many similar removals, yet I wasn't even *approached* about stopping the edits, much less blocked. Beta? Instantly blocked. Either the behavior is acceptable, or it isn't. It doesn't matter WHO is conducting the behavior. Good grief I feel sorry for Beta. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because, Hammersoft, you have not have not come under scrutiny on WP:AN about civility issues and possible editing abuse. You haven't had restrictions imposed on you and do not need to be surveyed in the same way the community feels they need to with Betacommand.

Anyway, I do agree that the image is unnecessary, but not entirely unquestionable. The Gustave Eiffel comparison that was drawn up is a very valid point; the articles need to be consistent one way or the other. --.:Alex:. 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the above thread. Just want to ask since your into the statistical area of wikipedia, and you have a subpage of Edit count, whether it would be possible for you to update the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. The last period is around April and May and given we're coming to the end of the year, i was hoping for a last update for 2008. The last person to update it, AutumnSnow, seems to be inactive for long periods of time. Let me know what, if anything you can do. Thanks Beta. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Im going to update my list of all users with over 5k edits. if you want to filter that feel free. β^_command 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beta,

I read the fair use overuse essay and I noticed in the first paragraph it says Superset instead of Subset. I think it should be the latter, see here.

Also is the truth quote at the top of this page a metaphor for the correct application of policy?

regards DFS454 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not seeing that quote, but as for superset vs subset. fair use is a subset (or part of the non-free content policy) NFC includes fair use but fair use does not include the same restrictions as as NFC thus fair use is part of the NFC and not a reverse as you where thinking. β^_command 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from your essay above that you have a POV on this matter. What we are looking for is honest discussion about the matter at hand. POV-ridden section headings are anathema to an open discussion. I am simply trying to introduce neutral headings so the section headings are not biasing the discussion. Will you please agree to stop reverting me so that the change can be made? Thanks, Johntex\^talk 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are attempting to push your POV with changing the headers. Leave them as they where. the origional post and heading was accurate. you are also breaking in commimg links with your rash actions. please show a little respect and stop attempting to side track the discussion/topic headers. β^_command 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong and you are also out-of-line. You are the one pushing POV. My proposed headings are completely neutral. I am also not aware of any incoming links broken; if there are any, that could be fixed. Besides, linking to section headings on a frequently archived page is never a good idea. As to showing a little respect, it seems you might not properly understand the meaning of the phrase. I came here with a very polite message and you greet me with insult and accusations. I hope you will step back and consider whether your statements are a good reflection on either you or the project. Sincerely, Johntex\^talk 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

When you are completely changing the subject headers to not reflect the actual posts that is POV pushing please dont give me that line about what is best for the project Ive heard them all before from POV pushers. "Logo usage" is not what was brought up. what was brought up was the over usage of such material. If you think those two headers convay the same subject then you have understanding issues. Hammersoft was not bringing up normal usage of logos, rather what was being discussed was the mass usage of non-free content against policy. β^_command 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"mass usage" is your opinion. "logo usage" is both informative and neutral. Johntex\^talk 23:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

mass usage was not opinion. having a logo on over 100 pages was mass usage. weather or not there are issues with that is part of the discussion. again you fail to research and look at the whole situation before pushing your POV. Canis Lupus 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that a specific number of uses constitutes "mass usage". The Foundation has not defined how many times a logo should be used, and I do not agree with or accept your definition. Johntex\^talk 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

(Posting here as an individual, not as an arbitrator, and without prejudice to anything should this or a related matter come before me in the latter capacity. Just thinking out loud here.) Suppose that for a period of time, Betacommand were permitted to use whatever methods he wanted, but rather than take actions (remove images, change templates, propose username blocks, whatever) he would instead list the items he thinks are problematic on an output page. Then another user could independently review the lists and decide which items should result in immediate action, which in tagging or warnings, which are not problematic, etc. We would retain Betacommand's skill at using tools to identify potential violations, but take him out of the role of ultimate decision-maker or notifier in areas where he's been controversial. Would this work? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If support gathers for this it seems like a reasonable way out. I don't think this can really work without restrictions on other editors, however. This awful state of affairs obviously isn't all Betacommand's doing (indeed, far from it). --TS 14:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the goal here is for his return to normal, as a productive editor, good suggestion. Beta, what are your thoughts? NonvocalScream (talk) 14:30, 30 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. β^_command 00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No offence intended to Roux, but he's had a fair few problems in the past here as well ([6]). At one point he was verging on the brink of exhausting the communities patience altogether so he seems far from an ideal choice to keep watch over things. Should you be unblocked, you would really need an experienced and trusted administrator to keep watch over things. I'll have a think of some people who might do the job well - I like the idea of have 2/3 users taking on that role so they can be as much help as possible and so that there's always someone around for the members of the community to go to should they have concerns. If you were to be unblocked, that would be last chance for sure - I think you might have passed that point anyway as far as the community is concerned, but there's still a possibility that something can be worked out. I'll work on getting some names together for people that can be put to the community as formal mentors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have linked to your statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Betacommand's statement per my notice there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want this statement copied to RfAr?--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Presently, this block appears to have consensus. I would remind you that, of course, indefinite does not mean infinite and that you or another party is free to request unblock at any time. I would, however, suggest that you allow a few weeks to pass to allow cooler consideration of any such appeal, in which time you may also be able to point to other interactions on other wiki's which indicate a better facility in dealing with other editors than you have been accused of at en-WP. I do hope that you are able to return in due course, since you clearly have the best interests of WP at heart and you are also prepared to work in an area that few care to - I only wish you would allow the results of your work to be your testement, rather than the manner in which you have advocated and proceeded in actioning it. As I say, I hope that you will be able to return - better and more effective by being more "reasonable" - in the not too distant future. Regards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)