User talk:UC Bill

PC-0

This user is politically incorrect.

NOTE: I do not believe in WP:CIVIL, and think it is a stupid, problem-causing policy. Phony politeness is not politeness. Feel free to insult me on this page all you like, although I would recommend against insulting anybody else. Note that you might still be reprimanded and/or blocked by some misguided admin for insulting me, although if this happens let me know and I'll do my best to defend your right to do so.

Hear hear. I agree 100%. I’ve added a userbox, “PC-0” statement that you might like. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates wiki

The wiki, as of this writing, seems to be down: Can't contact the database server: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) (localhost). Just a heads up. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm upgrading some software packages on that server, so it'll probably be flaky for most of today. Some stupid security audit website for an e-commerce site I'm working on was complaining that I had PHP 5.2.8 instead of 5.2.9, so I'm just upgrading all the installed packages. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll go put a site notice up or something so people know what's going on. --UC_Bill (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Regarding your comments on Talk:Nancy Cartwright: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TheLeft orium 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare try to block me, jerk. I don't give a rat's ass what you THINK policy says, I can say whatever I want, to whoever I want, any time. I have just as much of a right to contribute to the encyclopedia as you, and you should go find something useful to do with your time, other than harass people who happen to have a foul mouth and short temper. Asshole. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theleftorium has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Okay, that's funny. --UC_Bill (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. GARDEN 22:20, 24 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS IS BULLSHIT. I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF CLEANING UP A GODDAMN VERY LARGE CATEGORY, AND SOME ASSHOLE CRIES TO THE ADMINS THAT I'M USING FOUL LANGUAGE. YOU'RE NOT THE FUCKING POLITENESS POLICE.

Decline reason:

Amazingly, capital letters and insulting other users does not make me want to unblock you. If you had actually tried being polite and made a calm and rational request, I might have been tempted Jac16888 ^Talk 22:30, 24 March 2009 (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.

Amazingly, your sarcastic bullshit and superior attitude have inspired me to stop contributing to Wikipedia entirely. I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project (yes, I'm a developer) and I hope you feel all good about yourself with your smug attitude. Douche. All the admins here (with a few exceptions) should be strung up and ridiculed by people who actually have a life.

Actually, apart from the first word of that comment, It was not sarcastic, nor was it meant to be superior. You seem to be very much a person who tells it as it is, which is great, but there is a difference between being a straight-shooter and well, lets face it, acting like a dick. If you've honestly just deleted something which you spent your own free time on, then that's pretty damn pathetic and the only person really losing out is you. You say I was acting superior but your entire little speech there fits perfectly with my favorite essay, Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas. Anyway, how about some advice, you have two options right now. Go off and be huffy, retire and never come back. You lose a hobby which presumably you once enjoyed, and sure we lose a useful contributor but I'm sure we can cope. Or, you can just let it go, you were a bit too loose with your tongue, someone sensitive didn't like it and you got a time out, but never mind, just forget it and move on. Your choice, makes no difference to me either way--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blocks are supposed to be preventative, dick-head. i don't "get a timeout" for calling a spade a spade, or in this case, calling a moron a moron. i've been contributing to wikipedia for eight fucking years, and have just about had it with you pathetic 20-something college kids who think you know shit from shinola. you're not a fucking police officer, you're SUPPOSED TO be doing useful things like cleanup work. you're a janitor. admins here should all be stripped of their rights, and a new batch brought in that actually understands their jobs.

Yes, thats right 20 years old, college student(not pathetic thank you very much) and I don't actually know what shinola is but there we go. First of all, for the record, I am well aware of what my role is as an admin, if you look at my contributions and logs you'll see most of what I do is cleanup, either the mundane deletions of unneeded pages or clearing up after all the little shits who use wikipedia as facebook. The reason I'm here having this conversation/argument/debate/whatever with you right now is believe it or not because I'm trying to help you--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:18, 24 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

fine, unblock me so I can request that my userpage be deleted. or just delete my userpage and purge the history, because I am exercising my right to disappear.

Decline reason:

As you are not currently in good standing, you are not entitled to a right to vanish. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (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.

Block extended

Following your previous edit, you are now blocked, your talk page is locked down, and you are unable to send email from this account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor is angry and frustrated. While blocks are meant to protect the encyclopaedia, this one adds nothing. If anything, it pours gasoline onto the fire because the editor is even angrier than he was before. I believe this lockdown is unnecessary, nor is it a last resort. Clearly UC Bill needs to vent his anger, so what's the problem with just letting him do that on his own talk page? You've already got him with his hands tied behind his back, now you're putting on the blindfold and the gagging mouthpiece, and kicking him in the goolies. Letting him continue to rant here doesn't harm anyone. This is just the sort of heavy-handed behaviour which gives admins a bad name. Ohconfucius 02:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.64.42 (talk) [reply]

This was extremely unfortunate

Bill, I appreciate that you've done tremendous amounts of good for Wikipedia in many areas. But what you just did here is exactly the type of behavior that the Arbitration Committee and administrator communities have recently stood up and clearly said is not OK, period.

I appreciate your extensive input on the Civility talk page on what objections you had to that policy and the new enforcement efforts, but you clearly were aware of what people were going to enforce, and you went and did all this anyways. I'm baffled as to what you thought the response would be, other than getting yourself blocked.

You clearly care about the Encyclopedia, and have shown a high degree of education and logic. This outburst was uncharacteristic and irrationally extreme.

If there's anything you want to talk about, please email unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block reduced to original 31 hr duration

After discussion with Hersfold I am reducing the block from indefinite to 24 more hours, the duration the original block would have run for (plus or minus an hour, not exactly sure).

We have a longstanding policy of allowing editors who have been blocked to vent about it. We know that people are human. We expect that some people who are blocked will be upset about it, and some will say so loudly. We hope and expect that most blocked editors will be adult about it, but the community does not demand perfection on this count.

So, tomorrow night, your account's ability to edit will be coming back.

With that said - Please think about your participation in Wikipedia. You have a clear and well articulated opinion on civility here. However, we have a community standard (from policy, Arbcom, administrator consensus, experienced user consensus) that requires that editors here treat each other like human beings. We expect that people will edit in a constructive manner, not just in article content but in relationships with each other.

If you just absolutely reject the community standard and will not abide by it, please do not return to the behavior earlier today. The best course would be for you to chose to leave without hurting anyone else or making yourself look bad - simply walk away.

It is my hope that you can come to abide by the policy. We do not expect perfection. But we do have a reasonable expectation that people can create a positive work environment for building the encyclopedia, not a hostile or confrontational or abusive one. You have by and large edited in a manner that was consistent with that, and I see no reason why you can't again in the future.

Whatever set you off today, it might help to talk to someone about it, but if you just want to let it lie and move on that's ok too.

I hope that you take all this constructively and go back to building the best encyclopedia we all know how to.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note on dissapearing - as your indef block was undone, I have restored your user page. If you chose to walk away and still want to vanish, I or another administrator can redo that deletion. But I recommend that you wait a couple of days and think about that decision. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Georgewilliamherbert. Very wise intervention. I appreciate your style. I also appreciate UC Bill’s style. I have been the target of UC Bill’s “direct-talk express” before and don’t mind it at all. Of course, I understand that not everyone can deal with being treated as such. I find UC Bill to behave honorably and to have good intentions. He is valued contributor to Wikipedia and we certainly don’t want to be driving experienced, mature, knowledgeable editors like him away unless he is truly shocking the conscience of the community—which he obviously isn’t. Like UC Bill, I tire of having to stumble all over myself trying to tell dick-heads do go do something to themselves that is physically impossible, all the while adorning it with wiki-pleasantries and “please” and “golly-gee”. There are thoroughly disruptive assholes on Wikipedia who get away with what they do simply by hiding behind the apron strings of civility—a very, very thin veneer of civility. I’ll take straight-talking UC Bill’s any day. A short cooling-off period is just what the doctor ordered for this situation. Greg L (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I looked at his comment on Talk:Nancy Cartwright. I’m still laughing as I type this.^Disclaimer Greg L (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should be done to encourage UC_Bill back to the project. His programming skills will be sorely missed. HWV258 04:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather the user had been given the opportunity to strike his appalling comments and apologise to both the original target and the two admins involved here. As it is, the user will return angrier than ever, and there's no closure for anyone. Tony (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the events transpiring here, I unconditionally remove my support for the return of UC_Bill to the project. On the contrary, I sincerely hope that UC_Bill (et. al.) never darken the doorstep of WP again. HWV258 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up to the kibbitzers. Because of UC Bills block, he is unable to edit this page or use the email this user feature. Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I don’t know that? I’m offering UC Bill some moral support here. I happen to like the guy. And your use of the word “kibbitzers”, which has, as one of its meanings: “those who offer unsolicited and unwelcome advice”, is an example of kettle-calling as it is certainly not helpful. Greg L (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geezus, assume bad faith more? "broadly : one who offers opinions." Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kibbitzer"—"one who looks on and often offers unwanted advice or comment <a kibitzer at a card game> ; broadly : one who offers opinions" [1]. The point being that there is a pejorative interpretation to your comment. If you really wanted to, you could have selected a word devoid of such overtones in these unsettled times. (In case you're ever tempted, the word normally has one "b") HWV258 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Couldn’t have said it better. Greg L (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, this is rich! "these unsettled times" call for words without a possible "pejorative interpretation"? bill's own header for this talk page make it clear that he rejects this type of delicate phrasing. maybe we can make bill's talk page alone an exception to the civility policy and all the editors that want to cuss each other out can come here to do it? (half-joking) untwirl(talk) 00:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" philosophy for posting at WP? HWV258 00:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

untwirl: Ohh stop with the “wahh-wahh”. He used a word that has a clearly defined pejorative connotation. If he didn’t mean it that way, then I have no problems. But I reject the suggestion that it is incumbent on the recipient to assume the least innocuous possible meaning. If he doesn’t want people to take offense to his writings, he can chose his words more wisely; that’s sorta the “well… Duh” part of writing. I’m baffled he would have even bothered weighing in here with his 2¢ (heads up to the kibbitzers … he is unable to edit…) since my post made it clear that I knew UC Bill was blocked because I was thanking Georgewilliamherbert for his wise reduction in the block down to ~24 hours. His whole post was a metric ton of weapons-grade foot-in-mouth. Now I’m done here with you. Bitching about this on UC Bill’s talk page is unlikely to impress UC Bill. It doesn’t impress me either. If you want to keep on complaining, bring it to my talk page. Goodbye to this 2nd-grader’s whining. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As to your last sentence, (treat UC Bill’s talk page as a gloves-off bash-fest, caged octagon), it is tempting isn’t it? We could textually beat each other’s brains out and then go have beer afterwards. Indeed, that would be refreshing break from Wiki-style flower-power talk ;-) Greg L (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) not crying, laughing. squeals of, "he's not being polite with his possibly pejorative phrasing!" are exactly what bill seems to detest. i am simply stating that i understand his position. if you dont like someone's remarks - take bill's advice, ignore it, don't whine about it. untwirl(talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we can start a list of "users who dont mind being cussed at"? ;) untwirl(talk) 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs. I am quite apoplctic that you interpreted my poor words as insinutating that you were in any way less than the utmost in prim propriety. If my ever-so-blasphemous prose did cause offense, I make my most sincere and require condolences. Please, sirs, when engaged in dialogue with me in the here-to-fore time, I humbily request your noblesse oblige towards any future lapses in my oh so meger phrasing that mightst require you to seek a negative insinuation in my humble prose in a churlish attempt to chastise me.

Notwithstanding the foregoing plea, please note that my prior statement that you should be aware that the primary inhabitent of this opulent den is both unable to engage in direct written comminique nor interact via mechanical post was information that I was, in my own pitiful way, unaware of your noblenesses understandings.

In other words, stop looking for ways to be offended, and I strongly doubt you were aware he was blocked with can't edit his own talk page, can't email, because you were consistantly trying to get him to respond to you, when he was cut off.Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider your words before pressing "Save page"? Both Greg_L and I were speaking of UC_Bill in the third person, so "because you were consistantly trying to get him to respond to you" doesn't make the slightest sense (nor does "consistantly" as we made one post each). You may care to invest in some form of small serviceable dictionary—eight spelling mistakes in your brief post indicates a determined lack of care (and that's giving the benefit of the doubt to "mightst"). HWV258 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't spellcheck for talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do you address the points raised. (For future reference, "spellcheck" is not written as a single word.) HWV258 18:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't respond to incivility. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a sad state of affairs

What a ridiculous situation - Isn't it about time Admins came to realise they are not the "politeness police"? What on earth is this futile, pointless and very punitive block supposed to achieve? Apart from making the admins involved, in my view, look really rather prissy and precious? Why not try and antagonise him to further anger? Giano (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time I was an admin for a large forum. It was staffed primarily by volunteers (that got some bonuses now and then). We also had our share of "sticklers for the rules" and "omg he called the other guy some bad name lets ban him" ppl... They didn't last long (unlike here) Two friends calling each other morons/idiots/whatever? Let em at it. Someone that is just about always grumpy? Leave em be unless they blow up (because if you don't they WILL blow up :P ) Tact, knowing when to be a stickler to the rules, and when not to, made that board one of the most successfull around (for its target group). Wikipedia may be big, but if this kind of thing keeps up its going to bust. Admins can't do everything. (content, program, etc) They can police so that others CAN do the work. Here obviously policing isn't enabling others, its disabling others.Jacina (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree with you more [2].This editor needs to be unblocked at once, and the admins concerned retrained. Giano (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bill's got a point

i'd much rather have him call me an asshole than endure the endless snide remarks and not-so-subtle insinuations that are the norm on wikipedia. untwirl(talk) 00:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untwirl, does that mean you have had a change of attitude? You did everything you could to get me blocked because of what I said on my own talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

malcolm, you were blocked, and not due to any report i filed. in fact, i don't recall ever "trying to get you blocked" - you accomplished that quite adeptly all on your own. to my recollection i've never filed a report on any noticeboard about you (or anyone), even when you were edit warring. my memory's not the best, so shoot me a diff if you have one. i do, however, feel free to comment in ill-conceived threads that you initiate, and to refute "evidence" that you offer.untwirl(talk) 18:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG reversed the block, but later you did try to convince him to block me (as well as previously arguing against the removal of Gwen Gale's block). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um, no. see your talk page untwirl(talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I've never filed a civility complaint and never will. And speaking of "civility", what about the comment in the block notice from the admin who extended the block to indefinite? "Goodbye, you're done here." Said to a longstanding contributor to Wikipedia who surely deserved more respect than that. I know UC Bill only from the date linking/delinking wars, where he is in the opposing camp. Disagreement on that issue notwithstanding, I am unhappy to see him leave.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UC Bill has made his departure official: [3]. He may have intended for this Talk page to be purged also, I don't know. Pending clarification from UC Bill, I suggest that this Talk page be full protected.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He can still blank his talk page. But, as far as I know the content can not really be deleted (aside by a member of the Arbitration Committee), and an edit history will remain. He might also change his mind at a later date and return. Then he would probably have to reactivate this page. If he just starts a new user name, he will be considered a sock puppet and the consequences of that could be quite unpleasant. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for one week for sockpuppetry. You've been editing from User:169.229.149.174 and using it to make trollish edits such as this and I've just had a checkuser confirm this. Any further cases of sockpuppetry will lead to a much longer block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be calling the Wikimedia lawyers in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclark xoom (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked you indefinitely because we have a policy called no legal threats and any threat is met with an automatic indefinite block until the matter is resolved. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Jon Gjerde

I have nominated Jon Gjerde, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Gjerde. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ike9898 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives