Please find another website to fuck around on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please be more specific, I would be happy to modify my behavior. This message, however, sounds like a ban, which I do not believe you are entitled to impose unilaterally. betafive 20:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing like a ban, because (for one thing) any admin is welcome to undo it or modify it if they think that's in the best interests of the encyclopedia, with no need to get my blessing first. For me to undo it myself, I'd want to be confident that you are going to stop seeking out conflict for conflict's sake, stop trying to get a rise out of people, and stop being rude to people while simultaneously complaining they are being rude to you. In short, stop the constant intentional shit stirring. Having reviewed your recent contributions, it would take a lot to make me confident of that - I suspect it's in your nature. If that's the case, you should find another website. Perhaps another admin will disagree. But you should address that in your next unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Betafive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not really sure why I've been indef-blocked; doesn't seem appropriate. Requesting review by uninvolved admin. betafive 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block reason was rather clear and I am sure you understood correctly why you are blocked. Just to be completely explicit: your constant bickering and fighting about really minor things, amount to disruptive editing. As you don't seem to get the message: Unblock request denied. Regarding your continued wikilawyering in the section just below: stop that or your talk page access will also be removed. Randykitty (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did you just miss that part where I requested review by an uninvolved admin? I understand why I've been blocked; I'm asking that it not be an indef block. betafive 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why you think that diff indicates that I am involved. Apart from giving you a few warnings, I don't think I have interacted with you and I don't consider myself involved. Feel free, though, to file another unblock request. I'll let another admin tell you the same thing. --Randykitty (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry, I had the wrong diff in my copy/paste buffer. betafive 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, so as I said, I gave you a warning. That doesn't make me involved at all. And I didn't advice you to file another request "such that it can be reviewed by a truly uninvolved admin", just another admin. --Randykitty (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:UNINVOLVED: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.

Given the above diff and the edit summary in this one, it appears that you have strong feelings about me, and hence are involved. betafive 20:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I don't consider myself involved and no matter how much you try pocking a fight with me, I remain uninvolved. Yjis kind of wikilawyering is not helping your case. --Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Betafive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:Randykitty suggested (above) that I refile my unblock request such that it can be reviewed by a truly uninvolved admin. To reiterate: it is my opinion that an indef block is inappropriately punitive.

Decline reason:

An indefinite block is just that, indefinite. The block could be forever or it could last for a couple of hours. If you genuinely wish to be unblocked, you need to address your conduct and the comments made here. The length of the block is the lesser concern right now. As long as you appeal in a civil and appropriate manner, I wouldn't worry about revocation of your talk page access. Mike V • Talk 20:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Betafive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will be less argumentative, I will take User:Writ_Keeper's advice, and I will stop ironically templating the regulars.

Decline reason:

Based on the recent discussion on this page, I'm declining your unblock request. As to the underlying problem with your approach to Wikipedia, I think Worm sums it up well with "It's your entire attitude". PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nope. The problem is not just those templates, it's your battlefield mentality here. You'll have to do much better than that to get unblocked. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

Betafive, it's not up to you to decide which admins are "biased" and at this point, you really shouldn't tell people like Floquenbeam and me to stay off your talk page. Removing discussion pertinent to your block is even worse, as it gives reviewing admins a misleading impression of the discussion. As for your reaction to Panda's remarks below, in combination with your last few edits and edit summaries here, you clearly don't yet understand, even now, why you have been blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might be willing to look into an unblock, but after reviewing your edits, your edit-summaries, civility and consensus-building don't seem to be your forté. I would have to suggest that a restriction be placed - we used to call it "civility parole" - if any administrator sees your behaviour, edits, edit-summaries as anything less than WP:CIVIL, you'll be immediately re-indef-blocked with no warning. Also: one major aspect of WP:GAB is that you acknowledge the behaviour that led to the block: you suggest above that it's punitive, when it clearly (based on your edits, summaries, etc) is not the panda ₯’ 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "civility parole." I was blocked for being disruptive (specifically, ironically pointy), not for incivility. betafive 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betafive, I thought that I'd have a look into this situation as I've got a lot of experience working with editors who can be redeemable with just a small attitude change. I think you can consider me an impartial administrator, given that we've never interacted. I've got a reputation for being a soft touch, done a lot of work in mentorship and smoothing out problems on Wikipedia. Looking at your editing history, in depth, I do not see someone who is here to work with others. You've constantly rubbed people up the wrong way and "wiki-lawyered" around comments. Look at your unblock request above - you've agreed to stay off Drmies page and stop dropping "ironic" templates - no, it's a lot more than that. It's your entire attitude and how you talk to people. I see no benefit in removing your block. Panda, I'd object to an unblock on civility parole - to come back he needs to buck up his attitude and someone needs to be keeping an eye on him for a while to make sure he means it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see also User talk:Gerda Arendt#August 2014 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to object to an unblock. This guy shows up on the 7th and has complete knowledge of our policies and where we have our most contentious discussions, AN/ANI. He seems to know just what buttons to push to cause disruption.

I suspect that this is not the first time this user has been blocked, the whole thing reeks of sock puppetry. Chillum 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement[edit]

Yesterday I had been about to draft a request that Betafive's block be shortened, perhaps to ten days. Fortunately, I waited. Now what I will do is to restate why I agree that any sort of unblock, even with a "parole", would be the wrong answer. The indefinite block is preventive, not punitive, because there is still no evidence that Betafive has any intention of contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Everything that he has said in order to get unblocked or to get the block shortened appears to be formulaic, trying to say the "magic" words that push the unblock button. To restate, here are some of the issues involving Betafive. First, as Floq says, general shit-stirring. Second, on being offered a civility parole unblock (which some of us think was well-meant but misguided), the comment that he was blocked for disruption, not for incivility, which was true but was spitting in the face of the would-be unblocking admin. Third, false (probably malicious) template use. Fourth, an agreement to stop the "ironic" template use, which no one else thought was humorous or ironic, but which shows an attempt to treat the whole problem as one of specific misdemeanors rather than a general disruptive bad attitude. Fifth, proposing to shut down WP:ANI. At least I have an explanation why he wants to shut down WP:ANI. I don't know who Betafive is, but he is probably the sockpuppet of a user who was banned at WP:ANI. Sixth, closing an RFC, and closing it in a disruptive way that had to be fixed by Drmies. Non-admin RFC closures request an experienced editor. Either Betafive really is a newbie, in which case the closure was either an overreach or an act of arrogance or both, or, more likely, Betafive is an experienced, but banned, editor. (Betafive stated that there was no consensus for the original proposal. That statement was literally true but deliberately and maliciously misleading. There was a consensus against the proposal. On that particular point, I think that I am justified in concluding that bad faith has been proved.) Those are only some of the issues. Betafive still hasn't said anything that gives a reasonable editor reason to think that he or she isn't trying to maximize disruption. Thank you for blocking. Thank you for leaving blocked. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn your talk page access. You should only use your talk page while blocked to compose unblock messages. If you wish to be unblocked in the future you should email any admin and explain why you want your talk page access reenabled to make the further unblock request. At this time, you should bear in mind the recommendations of WP:GAB and begin by listing exactly why you think you were blocked, and why it isn't necessary any more. You should obviously avoid repeating the same weak reasons you previously used. Best of luck, --John (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not really interested in your e-mails. Please refrain from sending more.

Nothing in the content of the email in any way convinces me an unblock is a good idea. Chillum 16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked you not to send me e-mail. You just sent me another. If you continue to abuse the e-mail user function to send me unwanted messages I will remove your ability to use it. Once that is done the only appeal would be to our unblock mailing list. Chillum 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a productive discussion with Betafive on the IRC unblock channel, and he would appreciate if people could refrain from leaving messages on his talk page, especially those which he would normally wish to reply to and discuss, but which is prevented by his talk page access having been revoked. Nick (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is sending me e-mails. I am not going to respond by e-mail because I don't want this person having my e-mail address. If he does not want me responding then he can stop e-mailing me. Chillum 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mention of you regarding the previous AN discussion at Jimbo Wales, if you feel i misinformed Jimbo Wales, or forgot to mention a specific detail, i urge you to respond and clarify. Other than that, i hope this isn't a bother to you. Lucia Black (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WhitesCantBeRaped. Since you had some involvement with the WhitesCantBeRaped redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]