User talk:Rootology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rootology is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia around the end of summer.

Contents 1 Public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me 2 Threat 3 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black 4 Betacommand unblock request bit that I sent the AC 5 ramu50 again

[edit] Public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me

Moved to User:Rootology/Public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me

[edit] Threat

Apologies, but I do read your statement "Maybe you won't, until someone researches up and posts Joshua Zelinsky. Should I? You know I'm very good at research," as a threat. I know it's not intended to be, and it's just an expression of your exasperation, but it reads very, very wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the tone of it can be read that way, but it's certainly not, but if I find that he's notable, his status here would offer no standing or protection versus his being created as an article. No editor is exempt from a WP:BLP of their own, of course, if they're notable. I feel that Josh simply doesn't understand the impact that a BLP article on someone can have. For context, this is what I wrote in full:

"All I can say is that you patently don't get what are the principle issues with BLPs. Maybe you won't, until someone researches up and posts Joshua Zelinsky. Should I? You know I'm very good at research. Would you object to that article being not semi-protected, and not covered by Flagged Revisions, and the #1 Google hit for all your potential employers, contacts, family, friends, and lovers to see?"

Especially for someone that isn't deliberately placing themselves on a pedestal, like a politician, artist, or celebrity, a BLP can be a major benefit, nuisance, annoyance, burden, amusement, or any of the above. And there's no more efficient way to get someone to think about what a thing like a cancer or injury may feel like than to suggest they think about what it would be like to have it happen to themselves. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I certainly didn't read it as a threat. The statement is a bit strange given that I'm a proponent of flagged revisions and it suffers from a variety of other flaws which I'll expand upon in a reply in a few days. But I really don't see that as a threat. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And replied. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A Man In Black's (AMiB) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. AMiB is topic-banned from the Article Rescue Squadron. AMiB is placed on a standard editing restriction for one year. Ikip is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing and from directing rude comments to users with whom he is in dispute. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. AGK 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommand unblock request bit that I sent the AC

I have no problem with Beta being unblocked with very 'binary' restrictions that are super-hard to game, and that could give us public access to his knowledge and insights while at the same time limiting down hard all the self-destructive stuff. I just mailed it in detail to the AC, and I'm one of the people that went last year from supporting Beta to being fed up myself the fourth or fifth go-round. Short summary of what I sent:

1. Any uninvolved admin can reblock for violations, the AC has no claim over him for that.
2. One username, User:Betacommand; he WILL be screened for CU randomly like a sports athlete for performance enhancers.
3. No bots or bot style stuff. At all. No backdoor requests for the same; anyone who facilitates or enables such a thing shares the same block as Beta if caught.
4. No offense, Beta, but your strength has never been article creation, which is our main reason to be here, and you sometimes have problems with the whole "on-wiki" discussion thing. But you're a wealth of maintenance and conceptual knowledge. A similar but reversed editing restriction to Thekohser: for every 2 bits of added discussion on talk or project space, 1 article edit. In addition, no more than 1 Article edit per two minutes.
5. Civility restriction, subject to ban, obvious.
6. Here's what will I'm sure skeeve some of you off, and to be honest something like this should have been in place for Giano as well: reverse-civility restriction. Anyone found to be goading or trolling Beta, no matter who they are, will be blocked as if Beta himself had violated his civility restriction.

With that, I got no problem with his coming home. rootology (C)(T) 16:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me (though I still disagree with #3 - as with the other restrictions, there shouldn't be any issues with the running of bots/scripts/etc.). I really do hope that #1 and #6 above hold weight over each other. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All sound very reasonable, apart from 3 and 4. We know Beta's not an article writer- that's fine, I'm not a recent changes patroller- we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Beta's good with NFC and bots- "bot style stuff" is good, as long as done carefully. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjd on this, except for #4. One edit every two minutes? That's extreme. لennavecia 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jenna. If this restriction needs to be made maybe once every minute? Or 45 seconds? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ramu50 again

Ramu50 was blocked one month as User:75.154.186.241. Some 4 days after his block expired he has edited again and this is his first edit..... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)