User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth

TUSC token 0952014894107913a59076d5378c61b1[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

Allow Me to Tell You Why I Have No Respect for You[edit]

Billinghurst, I see where you blocked me for a year without explanation, and I am stopping by to tell you what I think about this. An administrator with intelligence and integrity doesn't just do "attitude blocks," he or she explains his or her actions in words and citing policy or principles. Your action thus demonstrates neither intelligence nor integrity.

I was polite, gave diffs, explained myself clearly. You want groveling. I pointed to clearly incorrect statements by the original blocker. Though they were central to my case, pointed to in fact as its rationale as well as the fact there was no warning or prior discussion, you were unwilling to acknowledge them in the slightest. This is an administrative bully's perspective of "you are bad, we are perfect, and above any criticism."

Neither is telling me my "approach" is to blame, without explaining in words why. The act of a person with any integrity would be to explain why. I'll help you: the reason you don't explain why is because you can't. You can't point to a rule, or any disruption, or anyone among the 32 who ever even complained (except my original blocker). Your entire perspective consists of me bowing down to you and your fellow administrators and flagellating myself to your satisfaction. I saw where you said in the diffs a week ago, that I hadn't "moved you." You are like some snooty theater critic of the early 1950s sagging back lazy and full of himself in his chair and sniping the latest hard-working and artistic Broadway production, because it makes him feel superior. But you are not superior. I also do not claim to be, but at least I gave rational explanation and evidence for my position.

In closing, though you remove my productive contributions and may take petty satisfaction that you took away something I cared about, I say I do not respect you in the slightest, and I wanted you to know this. I'd sign clearly w. username if I could, thank the filter stalkers you associate with. Feel free to sign it for me. Username filtered, 22 October, 2014.

Interesting. You came to meta to complain about a block here. You were blocked by an admin there after canvassing about what they saw that as unreasonable actions. You undertook conversations there which garnered little to no support, and had your talk page further blocked by that admin. I declined your unblock at meta after the opinion was garnered and expressed, finally with the conversation terminated, expectations of an unblock based on that discussion are simply unrealistic. Thanks for the remainder of your feedback about my character and my knowledge, clearly your opinion should be highly regarded, as well as your observations. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, WMF Exec. Director Lila Tretikov holds my opinion in at least some positive regard, having personally thanked me for some advice I offered her, so I'm not bothered by sarcastic snark from Billinghurst who's eye-strainingly distant down the totem pole from her on Wikimedia matters. You're factually incorrect twice just above, which is astonishing for such a short paragraph. It seems clear by now you devalue basic accuracy, you were incapable of even acknowledging the demonstrably wrong statements of Snowolf. But in case you want to correct yourself, including on your incorrect statements damaging to me, my early Meta edit history shows that I came to Meta for other reasons than what you claim, as well Snowolf didn't block my talkpage, it was some other administrative bully, that didn't even leave an explanatory comment on my talkpage, thus an abusive act. On your last, I think the role of a block reviewer is to review the block and defense on its merits and make an independent call. What you say you did is strikingly different, you assert nobody was going to unblock me in your opinion, and then quash even the possibility that someone would, all the while attempting to dodge responsibility for your own act, positioning it as a merely bureaucratic act such as filing a piece of paper. Inconsiderate and disgusting. Username filtered, 23 October, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.80.126 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your behaviour, according to you, is exemplary and valued. Clearly the fault lies with me, and maybe some with others.

The role of a block reviewer is to independently assess whether the person is able to follow the community's expectations, and able to modify the behaviour/approach to the community's standard(s) that got them blocked in the first place. In this situation you escalated rather than de-escalated, and continued the behaviour that got you blocked. Nobody that you pinged responded in your favour, nor removed the block. After an extended period of your "unblock" request, I closed it, though did change your block from infinite. Maybe, next time around, try to negotiate, rather than harangue. When people are continually insulted ... <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]