User talk:Anetode/archive 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Aset Ka
Yes, I took it to DRV, as you seem to have noticed. :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, can I please apologise profusely for undeleting that page. I was assuming good faith (something I do religiously, which can get in the way of common sense at time). I'm glad you spotted this, as the DELREV is going very SPA, if you know what I mean. Apologies. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You're back
It's always a good day for me when I can remove someone fro the WP:MW list. [1] Welcome back. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
block of BCBot
Please reverse that block, there have been other agreements made. your block just set back the progress. βcommand 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Careful Anetode, you do want to fail to comply with his demands and be taken to arbcom as I'm about to be dragged there for the same thing. MBisanz talk 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the head ups. I find the possibility of being subject to arbitration for failure to comply with such demands to be kind of absurd. If it comes to that, I guess I'll try my best to offer a frank explanation of the events that transpired. Most arbcom cases I've looked at tend to get kind of convoluted and political, so if it comes to that I suspect my involvement will be minimal. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is a funny word to use for this situation. Personally, I'm not seeing any. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
And this takes the cake, showing that a block was totally uncalled for:
"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see WP:DABS which are run on cronjobs." - User:Betacommand, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, 14:58, 16 May 2008 [2]
For such a long time editor and admin, honestly, I should not have to tell you that blocking is a last resort. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, you don't. I'm aware that blocking is a last resort, a drastic measure that must have a clearly defined reason. I don't recall ever having blocked an establised editor for anything more than a 3RR violation and I have never blocked Betacommand's primary account. I have blocked BetacommandBot once when it was malfunctioning, and he was very quick in spotting the error and stopping the bot, so I unblocked the account after some nine minutes. This is a completely different situation. If you disregard, as I did, the initial reactionary blocks of all his accounts and accusations of sockpuppeteering, there was a substantial discussion about Betacommand's apparent incompetence in effectively implementing new ideas for bot tasks. The most recent example of which is the defaultsort faux pas, but since monitoring the account and the relevenat AN and AN/I threads, I've noticed that there is a substantial history of similar mistakes. Quite a few members of the community, including admins and bot operators, expressed a lack of faith in his ability to responsibly run automated tasks and be held accountable for them. John Nagle and Durova suggested a set of sanctions in an attempt to rectify the problem without going to the extremes of banning all future bot runs or enforcing a punitive block on the main account. These sanctions, by the time I instituted the block on Beta's Bot account, had accumulated a twelve to one support - a consensus if I ever saw one. I decided, in light of this consensus and taking into account the ineffectiveness of many prior measures, including tedious Arbcom discussions, to proceed in enacting one of the least controversial conditions of the sanctions, one that would prevent Betacommand from running tasks under his bot account for a period of time sufficient to satisfy concerns about lack of forethought and responsibility. The decision to block came after some thought and consideration of the opinions of a dozen knowledgable users. A last resort would be a block of Betacommand's primary account, or a more severe restriction on the accounts he has access to. Right now, both the Betacommand and Betacommand2 accounts are unblocked, only his bot is affected, as a preventative measure in light of a prolonged discussion at AN and the removal of the bot flag. Of course the bot flag and BAG membership are matters to be decided by members of BAG, but right now there appears to be a consensus to enforce a break on any automated activities until such time as a fair review of Betacommand's willingness to obide by common sense restrictions may take place. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I don't completely agree that the block is justifiable, I can still respect the logic you used. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
