User talk:24.18.132.13

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages
• Style Guide
• Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question. Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning of acceptable content

Adding that sort of link will get you blocked, as it is a clear breach of Wikisource's acceptable use. It is neither helpful nor relevant to the discussion of adminship, blocks of users or other matters discussed on WS:AN. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst, you asked me to provide my name, stating that you would not take me seriously as an anonymous IP.[1] I did so, and went further by providing my connection to this issue. Read the story - not only does it provide background to the entire discussion - background which, I may add, is public information, in the press, and will be found anyway by anyone googling keywords already being discussed - but it gives my name as well.

You wrote, "To the IP contributors, I will read your comments and the value of your opinion, and I can understand that you like the anonymity to throw barbed comments, however, you will need to note that for me it gets less respect than if you put your name to your voice."

Let me predict right now that you will change your tune completely, and profess outrage that names should be put to your voices.24.18.132.13 07:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Gday, thanks for the response. The posting of the url is still in breach of our policy, and simply "two wrongs don't make a right". My task as an admin is to look to the principles and policy of the site, and with the guidance of the rules to uphold the principles. I believe that I did that.

I was aware of the story, and read it recently along with a lot of other history that has come out of the woodwork post this matter. When I saw your name, I understood the personal nature of the matter and the angst that I can see it has brought. I may have been too literal with the word name, as I meant account name, however, your real name does lend to the impact upon you. I am hoping that I can follow a respectful debate that draws out reasonable and practicable solutions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst. I'm too exhausted to write much tonight, but your invitation is a welcome surprise, and appreciated.24.18.132.13 07:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From Billinghurst

Mr. U. People at this wiki are here to contribute things to our library, in their own time, in a way that they think adds value to the site. They are not here for your entertainment nor to have their wiki history dug through, nor to have value judgments on their life from a very one-dimensional perspective. We don't import wikidrama, and we haven't imported yours. So can I ask that if you are here please look to add works that add to the library, anything else is probably going to look like a waste of time. If that is not your purpose for your edits, then maybe you can look elsewhere for your entertainment. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought things had calmed down, honestly. Please see my response to Hesperian. I apologized to Cygnis, but evidently that just freaked her out more.

I'm not sure what value judgments you're talking about, but whatever.

(I've changed your section title, because it very falsely alleges criminal behavior.)24.18.132.13 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block 24.18.132.13 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure how you can see those contributions as positive and helpful to the debate. The accusations simply have to stop. I have placed a 24 hour block, and we will see whether you are able to address the matter differently tomorrow. This page is still open for edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care; it's just a number anyway. Though I will point out that "harassment" has a legal meaning as well. I have never "stalked" nor "harassed" any Wikimedia contributor (or anyone else,) except according to the novel meanings you've attached to those terms and the self-serving ways you've deployed them. It remains really puzzling to me the way you guys dish it out quite liberally while only very rarely reflecting upon on your words.

Hostility is as hostility does; I spent the past 24 hours trying to simmer things down, but Cygnis and Hesperian wouldn't have it. If this is the red meat you have to throw them to sate their need for a successful iteration of the conflict-victory cycle, then well played.

I'd be interested to hear Jaydvb's opinion of my proposal at User talk:Longfellow. You may think it a bad idea, but this is what I've thought for years now. A ban is stupid, because he'll just return, very likely with several more nyms and an evolved approach. Anyway, we want his contributions.

You know the old saying about the man who only has the hammer, and every problem looking to him like a nail? Funny, that applies to sysops and me as much as it does to sysops and him; though the circumstances couldn't be more different, we are at least both not nails. Some element of persuasion is in both instances required.24.18.132.13 08:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and your enlightment about the means I use to resolve matters. I will obviously have to bow to your superior intellect, your superior people management and your vast issue resolution skills. I am just nothingness, and I will have to be content to just maintain that level of inadequacy. You will excuse me if I then have to retire to another part of the wiki to lick my wounds. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, what is wrong with you people? People management? Obviously not. I wish I could wave some magic wand to make you all act reasonably. Without one, I'm stumped, and feeling more like Moulton must feel than I'd like to. How would you ever get by without those little buttons, which blow other people's voices completely out of the water, instantly, with no opportunity for appeal? Try that in public if you don't like what someone's saying, put a gag over someone's mouth and try to throw them out of the room. Preferably someone stronger than yourself (but of course the key is to pick on only those weaker) - see how that works out for you. You really think that's "civil?" It is to laugh! Thanks for allowing me to vent on my user talk, I guess.24.18.132.13 10:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

To note that I have moved the discussion about the proposal to ban you from English Wikisource to a subpage of Scriptorium Wikisource:Scriptorium/Proposed community ban of Proabivouac — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So the ban discussion is to proceed while I am unable to defend myself? Shouldn't there be a moratorium on comments until I return?24.18.132.13 10:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yours means of 'defense' is a subject of that discussion, and one of the causes of your ban elsewhere, so no. cygnis insignis 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cygnis, are you witness, prosecutor, judge, or all three?24.18.132.13 10:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the above, is that one of the few things on which you are uncertain? I now have a large investment in finding a positive outcome that benefits the community, and I was flattered to see my sentiments on self-interest echoed in your hypocritical inversion as an accusation. I think this is yet another puerile attempt to undermine open procedures, which is your craft and talent, and that you realise if these matters are well resolved your slim claim to fame/notoriety starts disappearing. Anyway, do you want me to copy to that accusatory question to AN or the new subpage? cygnis insignis 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is only a 24-hour block; things do not move very fast here so you will certainly have a chance to have your voice heard. If there are any comments you immediately want added to the other page just make a note here and I will transfer it so long as you refrain from talking about the meatspace identities of Wikisource contributors. What might be more helpful than continuing the same tactics which led to this block, would be if you explained why it is important to you that you not be banned.--BirgitteSB 17:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made constructive edits to Wikisource in the past, without any controversy. My account was globally locked by someone on meta, making it impossible to contribute here or on Dutch Wiktionary as a username. At most, I'd be an occasional IP contributor, as my edit in November.

It feels stupid to have to beg to be allowed to volunteer for any project, and unlike Wikipedia, where one might seek the (transient) pleasure of having subjects presented in what one feels to be the most appropriate way, the work here is mostly just that - work, made significantly more unappealing by the fact that I can't take credit for it.

The main reason I don't wish to be banned is because it's insulting. And isn't that its point? Seeing, after all, that I already can't contribute from my user account, and I won't have this IP for much longer.

I would have participated further in discussions about governance here - which could bear some improvement, to say the least - but this vision of a place in Wikiland which administrators don't cover for one another and their favorites while using sysop powers to bully and silence others will remain, I'm afraid, inevitably a fantasy so long as sysops are in charge at all.

It’s exhausting to argue with a tag team of mutual backscratchers in a discussion that is, both socially and technically, hopelessly rigged. Having made my point, I’m inclined to find something else to do, if you’ll allow it.24.18.132.13 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to understand you, so please correct me if I made an mistakes. 1) You don't wish to be insulted with an outstanding ban and/or ban discussion here. 2) You are willing go away having now made your point as well as you think possibly can given the environmental conditions here. If that is correct I would be happy the courtesy blank the subpage on banning you and remove the pointer there from the Scriptorium, leaving any currently outstanding comments you have made on the issue elsewhere in place; provided that you do desist from posting on en.WS and refrain from contacting any en.WS contributors off-wiki who have not explicitly invited you to do so. If when the ban discussion of Longfellow begins you, see something that we are greatly missing; you may email my yahhoo account with the username Birgitte_SB and I will make sure the substantive points are made public although may not use your exact wording. Does that proposal address all your concerns?

It does. Thanks, Birgitte.24.18.132.13 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I am going to implement it.--BirgitteSB 01:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)