User talk:Unitanode/Archive 5

This 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Abusive and ill-informed use of the block button

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Per this I warned that the next person edit warring over the hat would get a block and then you waited until the dust settled and then did precisely that. You leave me no choice.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You've sullied a clean block log for an edit that is over 10 hours old, was not edit-warring, and is in no way against any policy? Unblock me straightaway, as this is just a patently bad idea. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
And, just to clarify, what is this block preventing, per block policy? From whatever angle I look at this block, it seems quite awful. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
What recourse do we normal little editors have against such patently absurd usages of the tools? Scott aka UnitAnode 05:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, your "warning" said absolutely nothing about the hab. It said, something about edit-warring over a "sentence" which I had no idea what that even meant. Don't make me place the "unblock" template. Just reverse this weird block now. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought it up at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cla. This is one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, when you blocked, you left a summary of "disruptive editing", which is patently absurd. I'll expect a suitable apology -- for both the claim of "disruptive editing", and the fact that the block was truly awful -- to be included in the unblock edit summary. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now I see! Hipocrite went whining to your talkpage about lil' ol' me collapsing his off-topic personal attacks, and you obliged by blocking me. Well, at least we know that you've hunkered down in his "bunker" alongside him. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting. I was actually coming on here to work on a potential DYK before bed, but you've snarled that, Spartaz. Good work. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've been blocked a couple of times. In my experience, it's best to take a break from the computer for a few hours and let it play out. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  - The thing is, I haven't been blocked since back in 2007. This is the kind of thing that chases good people off the project. Dumbass, "I'm going to use my block button as a paddle to spank you" blocks like this make both the admin levying it, and the whiner asking for it, look terrible. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this looks worse and worse. Now, it appears that Spartaz has performed some kind of block-and-run. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that there's nearly ten hours between the edit and the block, the phrase, "You leave me no choice" from the blocking admin rings a little hollow. I'm really not seeing any rationale for the block, per policy. It smacks of punishment and that is not what the block button is for - Alison ^❤ 06:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please tell Tbsdy to get out of that thread? What is he thinking offering administrative commentary about an editor who just finished bringing a proposed article/interaction ban against him? Scottaka UnitAnode 06:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can make commentary on ANI, and I will. I've unblocked you now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  - While I appreciate the unblock, the edit summary, which implies I'd actually done something wrong, is not appreciated. The initial block was bad, no matter when it had happened. Scottaka UnitAnode 06:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
    - I don't necessarily disagree with that admins reasoning, but given the time frames I do disagree with the block. Therefore, that's why I unblocked you. I'll not be posting anything more to your talk page, I know you don't like that - I will be making comment on ANI however. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      - If you agree with his reasoning, then you haven't looked closely enough at the situation. I did nothing wrong at any point. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Block came a little late"?!?

Bull. The block would have been pathetic had it come the instant I habbed the off-topic commentary from Hipocrite. It was a putrid use of the tools, whenever it happened, period. And to sully a clean block log for that is utter bullshit. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Still showing as blocked

He did it up really good. Even unblocked, I'm still blocked. And I'll expect a 1-second block, with an apology for sullying my block log shortly. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please fix this damn autoblock?!?

Good lord. Scott aka UnitAnode 06:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A developer really needs to fix this autoblock thing. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Very true. But having admins that didn't place dumbass blocks that had to be overturned early would help as well! :) Scott aka UnitAnode 06:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Thanks Unitanode, I'm trying to explain it to him but he's just not following. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. This whole thing has been surreal. First, because the initial edit was not even edit-warring, but simply collapsing a perceived personal attack. Second, because I lost a clean block log for this? Third, because you were the one that unblocked. (No offense, just saying.) And finally, because Jehochman is blaming Spartaz's angry departure on me, when I haven't even posted to his talkpage. Truly, a strange situation. Scott aka UnitAnode 15:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, pretty unfair to you. I'm not a total monster you know, I just muddle through as best I can. If I see that someone is blocked unfairly, even if I don't see eye-to-eye with them I'll do what I can to unblock them. That block was unfair to you (I still don't agree with the hat tag you added, but I know what you were trying to do), so I unblocked. I was the direct cause of him deleting his user pages, which is insane (I was trying to say early on that he shouldn't be sanctioned - yeah, I know you disagree). It escalated out of control from here, which is indeed quite surreal.

BTW, I meant what I said - you are a valuable contributor and you were doing useful work when you got blocked. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your reasons and motivations (who can ever really know such things, right?), I appreciate it, and it took guts to stand up for your decisions like you did as well. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit to ANI

Hi. You posted within an archived section - while I am aware that you are the subject of that section, you may wish to move it outside the coloured box thingy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've discussed it with Xeno (the archiver), and he said it was a problem with the "EC handler" or something like that. I asked if he wanted me to revert, and he said it didn't really matter. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is discussed at User talk:Xeno#Strange - I don't think it's a huge issue just leaving it there. –xeno^talk 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only providing a polite notice - but if you wish me to act in the currently fashionable admin manner; If you don't redact that edit immediately, I shall be forced to drink some water!!! Any spillage down my chin will be your responsibility!!! (i.e. Fine, no problem) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably block me for 1 second for "disrupting the beautiful patina of the purple box." That'd be fun. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's more of an 'off-brown', really. –xeno^talk 16:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting my color assessments is (or should be) a deadminning offense. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP Mentoring

I see you are active in the BLP space and I wonder if I could seek some guidance. A while back I came across this coatrack -I don't even recall how I ended up there. I had never heard of Behe before this and the intelligent design/evolution food fight doesn't interest me in the least but I was appalled with the article as I found it. It seems to exist merely to discredit someone (who as it turns out, is a published professor at a mainstream university) whose theories the editors take issue with. I listed the BLP issues I found on the talkpage here. A day later no one had responded so I removed the un/poorly sourced material in a series of edits starting here. These were quickly reverted. Discussions went know where so I went to the BLP notice board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Behe). That went nowhere so I reposted a more detailed list of the BLP issues back on the talk page ([1]). I though we were getting somewhere when Guettarda dug up some references to address a few of the issues but nothing was ever changed on the article itself. I'm tempted to start removing material again but don't want to edit war. Am I misreading the policy? Does it not mean what it says about deleting on sight without discussion? How do you handle it if a group of editors decide to simply ignore the issues and revert all attempts to remove objectionable material? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time (and with starting a new job on Monday, even less so now), but I can say this: if you have BLP concerns, and have followed all the steps you outlined above, beginning to remove whatever Guettarda has not been able to source should be no problem at all. I will warn you, though, that Behe attracts the same kind of, well, "enthusiastic" editors that the GW-related articles attract. You will have to be persistent, civil, and patient beyond belief to bring anything resembling balance to that article. I'll put it on my watchlist now, and tinker with it as I have the chance. Regards, Scott aka UnitAnode 23:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting this edit by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs).

Also see this comment by the same editor at my talk page: User_talk:Nsaa#Too_far. Nsaa (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My Block

You may have seen comments elesewhere that I have been undertaking adminsitrative actions while affected by external RL issues that have affected by judgement. My reaction to the furore over my block is clear evidence that I was not thinking straight when I made the block and that I had no business blocking anyone while my judgement has been impaired. The upshot is that I have decided that I need a decent break away from admin activity until such time as the external stressing factors have reduced to an acceptable level. I will be using a non-admin account until I feel better and will not be involving myself in any drama round here either. I doubt that you would accept any apology but you are entitled to an explanation for my recent actions. You may also be interested in checking out your block log. [2]. Best wishes Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted without reservation. And thank you for the note in my block log as well. Greatly appreciated, and I hope you feel much better soon. Scott aka UnitAnode 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fucking ludicrous "warning" from a nobody

Please remember to maintain civility in discussions by avoiding using such swear words as "fucking". Avoid escalating tensions by toning things down. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming from someone who completely ignored his own RfC on user conduct, this is quite amusing. And it goes without saying, bullshit. :) Tarc (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore it is, if I may, fucking silly to use a word such as "fucking" whilst remonstrating with an editor for their use of the word "fucking". pablo_hablo. 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Butting in ininvited and probably unwelcome. I just want to say that although I do share your anger and contempt at what passes for fairness here on wikipedia, I've come to the conclusion that it's all an elaborate ploy to give the admin drones the excuse they need to get rid of people like us. They know all they have to do is turn up waving their big sticks and we'll respond in kind, so don't do it. Don't give them them the excuse they're looking for. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not unwelcome at all. I usually choose my words very carefully, and I did so here as well. A Nobody is, I must say, a fitting name, and his odd rantings on various subjects are usually apropos of absolutely nothing. If we start blocking people for saying "fucking", the 'pedia may well just implode. Scott aka UnitAnode 02:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked once for using the word "sycophantic", so "fucking" obviously merits an ArbCom ban. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You have mail!

--GoRight (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Scott aka UnitAnode 02:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

An answer

Because that information was irrelevant to the article. You could ask me, you know, if you don't quite understand. I am quite reasonable if occasionally passionate. It might go towards having productive communications, which I think you might agree, is certainly warranted. --Moni3 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Heard the news

... of your latest warning, but can't find the discussion. I'm appalled. For the record, you can call me Sandy, Georgia, SG, SandyG, or whatever comes to mind. (Well, not really anything, better not call me dull, lifeless or boring ... but I'm still shocked. Malleus once called me a word I had to go look up ! :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, because it was pointless and stupid to keep it around. Thanks for your support, though! Scottaka UnitAnode 02:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I found a few pieces, and am flumoxxed. To make it even better, the admin who warned you once told me to fuck off, and I forgave and forgot ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  - It struck me as odd, because he's normally been quite sensible in my only interactions with him. Needless to say, his enabling of Mr Sidaway's insistence on having me refer to him by his first name seemed odd to me. Scottaka UnitAnode 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    - Well, it came up elsewhere because I referred to an editor by what is clearly his first name, and he objected. Guess he expects me to type out his full long name everytime I address him ... so best not to address him at all! This place gets whackier and whackier by the day ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
      - Your last sentence could not be more true -- though I think you mean "wackier" and "wackier" ... ;) Scott aka UnitAnode 02:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
        I thought it looked funny ... I'm tired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
        It did look "funny", but no worries! After the 3/4 of an hour I wasted on the name kerfuffle, I appreciated the chuckle. :) Scott aka UnitAnode 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I may just leave for good (or awhile)

This whole climate change nonsense, where administrators are using their few extra buttons to bully other editors even about using surnames to refer to people is just out of control. LHvU was way out of line with what he did, and Johnathan E. Hochman has jumped into the fray as well. Both seem to have the misapprehension that having a few extra buttons at the top of your page somehow makes you a superuser of sorts, able to make demands of your fellow editors. I say, "Bullshit", and if that's the way that the powers-that-be are going to allow this project to be run, then I also say "Fuck it" and keep the change. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very easy to get discouraged, and sometimes a timeout clears your head. The project is obviously doomed to failure, but that doesn't really matter; all that matters is that the worthwhile content survives in an open and easily accessible way elsewhere. The 95% of crap is best dumped and forgotten. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is just utter bullshit. Now he's tagging my comments as "inappropriate" and refusing to explain why, then threatening to block me for removing the inane tag. Jonathan E. Hochman is inserting himself into situations that he doesn't understand, and throwing the weight of his extra buttons around in a way that is utterly unbecoming. What LHvU did was strange, but Jonathan E. Hochman's behavior is just way beyond the pale. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The civility police are out of control, so until there's a mechanism in place to get those lunatics out of office you (and I) need to tread very carefully. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing how Jonathan E. Hochman justified blocking me for "incivility" simply based on my post outlining how humorous I found his and LHvU's umbrage at my usage of the honorable Mr Tony Sidaway's surname by way of addressing him. That would definitely be an interesting discussion! Scott aka UnitAnode 04:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)