Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand

Basis for unblock
This is just an analysis of the early opinions on the block, as Viridae said my unblock is "condemned, and only BC and I support it", and Arthur Rubin is trying the same line to defend his block: "However, I don't see any rational reading of either the ArbComm or community prohibitions which would allow him to do what he apparently did. ... Nor has anyone else other than you and beta" and "But I really don't see any support for your position in ANI/beta". I promised Viridae I would provide diffs, so here is a run down of how I saw them, or at least the beginning of them as I've stopped before the block as I have run out of time.


 * 21 August 2008
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Synergy - 10:19 - "Not a breach", 10:23 - "Can we unblock him now?"
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Sam Korn - 10:33, 21 August 2008
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Franamax - 11:33, 21 August 2008
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Nandesuka - 11:54, 21 August 2008
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Is he back? - 13:22, 21 August 2008  - "Unapproved automated edits", 14:32 - "In what way is Twinkle "semi automated"? ", 14:39 - "he was just answering "yes" to all edits without reviewing the actual changes to the articles, just as I thought. Also, this was not done using Twinkle, as some claim.,
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The wub - 13:56, 21 August 2008 - "clear violation of his sanction"
 * Comment - - Baseball Bugs - 14:08, 21 August 2008 - BC says "not a violation of his restrictions", - 14:32, 21 August 2008 - The fuzzy area might be the sanction about "edits that appear to be automated."
 * Comment - Hammersoft - 14:19, 21 August 2008 - "What Beta was doing was GOOD for Wikipedia"
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Jennavecia - 14:20, 21 August 2008 - "If these sanctions were meant to restrict him from using TW, why was it not removed from his monobook?"  - "It's not fully automated." "indef me too"
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]  Jonathunder - 14:24, 21 August 2008
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]  Haukurth - 14:32, 21 August 2008
 * Jennavecia points out that there are many users in good standing and aware of the history who do not endorse the block - "So where, exactly, is this block justified as a benefit to the project? " 14:44
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Baseball Bugs - "in my shop we test things before we run them in production" - 14:44
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] - 14:53, 21 August 2008 - Conti - "Really, where's the difference between a fully automated process and one where you blindly type "y" before every edit?",
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]  Ryan Postlethwaite - 14:53, 21 August 2008 - "This was clearly an automated process.", 15:05 - "This is an automated process - no thought went into this", "whether he clicks yes without thought, or he programs the computer to do it makes no difference in my eyes - they're both automated.", "I doubt any thought went into the edits, just a constant clicking of y - that's just about automated in my eyes." 15:53
 * Comment 15:00 - Satori_Son - BC "only intended to perform one edit"
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Rjd0060 - "I think its just great that we're dulling out punishment for things that we don't even know anything about (at least thats the way it looks to me)." - 15:01
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Shereth - 21 August 2008 - "Beta's edits were constructive and useful and we should not be shooting him in the foot for technically violating his restriction, I have to endorse the block, as well." (showing an appreciation for the fact BC had actually done the right thing)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Friday - 15:20
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] D.M.N. - 15:23
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Hammersoft - 15:26, 15:48, 21 August 2008 "No, just that we shouldn't see 20 blocks and go "Ok just block him indef". That's a knee jerk reaction. Many of the blocks are unfounded, accidental, etc.", "Beta was acting within his restrictions.
 * Comment - Synergy - 15:34 - "The so called community sanction on beta failed to stipulate these actions. If he was not allowed to use twinkle or AWB, .."
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Islander - 15:42
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] TreasuryTag - 15:53
 * Comment - "He's exhausted the patience of a portion of the community. But that portion of the community has exhausted the patience of another part." Jennavecia - 15:54
 * Reply to Ryan - Rjd0060 - 15:56
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Nixeagle - "Take what you will, but I don't think betacommand had any intent to do those first 200 some edits."
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Barneca - 16:02
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Kbdank71 - 16:12
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Pascal.Tesson - 16:14

By my count, that is 8 7 oppose vs 16 support, based on how I read those comments. Some people might tell me I misunderstood their opinion, which if that happens en-mass then I'll take that to heart. Others might interpret the above comments differently; thats not the point: I am merely showing that I was not acting on based solely on my own reasoning; I thought that there were plenty of people who thought the block was bad, but more important I think some of the above will reflect on their comments and realise that they were ill-informed when they supported the block in light of 1) the actual sequence of events that BC performed to deserve this block and, 2) the community was at the time undecided on whether the BC sanction should have been enforced for semi-automated tools, and we are only now starting to work out what the boarder community wants in that regard. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * only if you count Hammersoft twice. 96.15.181.19 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did unintentionally; thank you for pointing that out. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 8 struck; 7 added John Vandenberg (chat) 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear on this - plus-sign means retain the block, right? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] is support the block; [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] is oppose the block, oversimplifying opinions terribly but hopefully also helpfully in understand what I saw at the time. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) And from this, you concluded not that support for the block ran over 2:1, but that there was sufficient support for an unblock? Where were you in 2000 when Gore needed you in Florida? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to the response following your unblock where only you and BC supported the unblcok. And why was that? Because there was consensus (ably demonstrated here) that the block should remain in place - while some people who commented oporiginally supported an unblcok, there wasnt consensus for an unblock and it would havre remained in place but for your actions. Noone (last time I looked) had stepped forward supporting your unblock agaisnt consensus. Viridae Talk 02:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)