User talk:Timecop

It has become apparent that your interest in Wikipedia lies only in disruption and trolling, so you have been blocked indefinitely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Community consensus was not reached. You really should have more than 10 people on the ANI page. The Mirror of the Sea 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Completely agree. This is a ridiculous overreaction and claiming consensus is absurd. The ban should be suspended forthwith pending a full airing of views from a wide range of editors, not just a small cabal of admins who find the user's page to be offensive and childish (which I admit it certainly is). Eusebeus 12:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A shame, a blemish

This block does not seem to be founded in any community sanctioned policy. It is a sorry reflection on the encyclopedia. Trollderella 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of block

This block was placed (by another admin) after a consensus was reached on the admin noticeboard that such a block was appropriate. It is in accordance with WP:BLOCK. --Yamla 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see any "consensus" at this noticeboard. What metric was used to evaluate consensus? Skrewler 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to discussion leading to block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussion about User:Timecop HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the admins have caved to the blogger horde. I'm sure being gay and having a sense of humor didn't help either. 1939 comes to mind for some reason. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The reasons behind the block are clearly laid out in the above link. The reasons did not include him being gay, having a sense of humor, or anything to do with the war on blogs. There is a pile of links to trollish behavior at the discussion, and your accusations are baseless. Why does 1939 come to mind Haizum?? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1939 = WWII. Go easy on the pipe. Skrewler 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above link just points out a lot of hyperbole, satirical cultural references, and reactions to deliberate provocation. The system has failed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I also find the ban quite excessive. The only people recently complaining were a blogger (who made legal threats) and a Wikipedia administrator on a personal crusade who was under the impression that dog was a derogatory word for Korean (LOL). Sam Hocevar 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say HighInBC acted quite well here, and is certainly not on a "personal crusade". This shows HBIC remaining calm despite being in a situation that he could have interpreted as an attack, and he left a message at WP:AN as well. He acted properly and appropriately as far as I can see. Can you show me why think he is on such a "crusade"? Prodego ^talk 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing one example of an admin acting properly does not mean all actions have been proper. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As the one throwing claims around, the burden of evidence is upon you to backup the claim that this is a crusade and one (or more) administrator has behaved inappropriately.

In all fairness, it needs to be noted that HighInBC isn't the one who banned Timecop; I am. If you're going to grill anybody about their behavior, it would be me, not him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to name names if they don't have to, but the evidence presented was simply not adequate; regardless of who presented it, and who instated the ban. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to block involved many admins, there is no point in saying it was the choice, or crusade of one admin. My only complaint with Timecop was his disruptive behavior, I will not repeat my evidence as it is already on display for all to see on the noticeboard. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

...and I won't repeat why the bulleted evidence would not constitute an indef ban. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since that was the key interaction with this user, who he is supposed to be "crusading" against, I thought that it should show a better example of HighInBC's conduct then any other interaction that may have occurred. If you can point to any action where you feel HighInBC acted improperly, let him know, I am sure he will address the issue. Prodego ^talk 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the example you provided is a sufficient example of HighInBC acting improperly. I believe the proper action would be to request that Timecop take them down, listing his own justifications for why they should be taken down. Instead, he took them down himself, without waiting for any explanation, and left a note on Timecop's talk page. Shoot now, ask questions later seemed to be the gist of the action. Timecop was understandably miffed - somebody had vandalized his user page, and what's more, they had done it simply because they didn't understand what they had vandalized. The fact that Timecop had to argue why the userboxes SHOULD be there is an indication of improper procedure. There should rather have first been a debate as to why they SHOULDN'T have been there.

The other reason why Timecop might have been a little angry is that previously, HighInBC's had noted on his talk page not to edit other peoples' user pages, only to soon after do exactly that to Timecop's user page. What kind of a hypocritical message is this sending? Regards, cacophony 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand the userbox crusade either, especially against the Osama one. I am not offended by such a userbox (I am however offended by any userbox praising GWB or stating that there is a God, yet I don’t make threats on random talk pages). Note also that timecop was blocked after he eventually removed it. Sam Hocevar 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Timecop did not remove the box, I did, and he returned it several times. Timecop was not blocked solely due to the userboxes, and timecop had been warned about that type of userbox in the past. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody please explain to me why the "troll" accusation holds so much weight here? In the above linked debate I see people using it as an argument against him, which is just as bad as banning somebody simply because they are stupid. Behavior is what counts, and if he's a troll, then as long as he's not trolling, thats fine by me. cacophony 21:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Evidence"

• Profanity that brings zero encyclopedic value, and general incivility: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]Just today [57]

Very indirect use of profanity with little/no evidence that anyone asked the user to stop. So what?

• Says By blocking User:Supers you support terrorism. [58]

A sarcastic comment. "Why do you hate America?" So what?

• Use of an ethnic slur: [59]

I don't condone it, but the inane use of "jewed" does not justify an indef ban. What kind of precedent is this?

• An image that apparently had to be removed from the database so even admins cannot view it: [60][61]

Using a novelty userbox does not justify an indef ban. What kind of precedent is this?

• Userbox accusing the jews of 911: [62]

Obvious satirical reference. What kind of precedent is this?

• My personal favorite, a request for surrender from the GNAA: [63]

What is the breach of policy here? I don't see it. What I do see is "my personal favorite" which suggests that a certain admin was pleased with this provoked response.

• Reaction to me removing his Osoma userbox: [64][65][66]

These responses were provoked by undue attention and capriciousness per the satirical nature of the userbox.

So where is all the solid evidence again?

You forget that there never was any, nor was it ever necessary. The ends justify the means. The Mirror of the Sea 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The ends do not justify the means, or I would just kill every human so that they stop harming my planet. What are your ends? Preventively blocking a two-year old account that could suddenly become dangerous? Sam Hocevar 10:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic and satirically portraying the rationale for User:Timecop's block. I do not think it was the right thing to do. The Mirror of the Sea 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are my opinions, what about the opinions of the several other admins who support this block? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They simply site the aforementioned points - the points that have been called into question without answer. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arb/RfC

Clearly this community ban does not have consensus. A more concrete dispute resolution tactic is necessary. Why not an RfC? 66.231.130.14 07:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying there is no community consensus does not make it true. Yes people are opposing this block, but they are not doing so with arguments based in policy. It is an easy mistake to count heads and come to this conclusion, but only arguements compatable with policy are counted. This is something you need to know before you start judging consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by HighInBC

[edit] Comments

I would just like to note that putting things in a pink report box does not neccessarily make them true or cogent. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure that wasn't what he was going for. There are a lot of false accusations/assumptions going on here, and the box sums up the facts quite nicely (in my opinion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct EVula, I am attempting to make my statement as to some opinions that have been presented that are dubious at best. The pink report box is to request that responses go in a separate section as that section is for my statement. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You state your main reasons for the banning are trolling and disruption. Give examples please, all I saw was an Osama Bin Ladin userbox, you having a temper tantrum about it and decided to go on a personal crusade, wasting who-knows how much of your and other admins time on it. Reinstate our fearless leader!!! Skrewler 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, not my main reason, the reasoning of several admins. Secondly, if you wish to challenge this blocking please do so through official channels. I have no intention of repeating what is already clearly on display on the admin noticeboard. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, now that everyone had their 10 seconds of internet fame

Can I have my account unblocked? That blogger is deleted, drama is over with, and I'd like to get back to improving Wikipedia. Thanks. --timecop 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unban me

Can you please unban me from #gnaa timecop? I'll be good. -dikdik —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.107.162 (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] WTF!!!!

You blocked Timecop?!?! CAN ADMINS DO THAT? WTF? Why because he is gay and black???? This is clearly some sort of conspiracy!!!!

You guys are making a mockery of Wikipedia by banning him, Wikipedia was designed so that people could use it to make opinions, and chat with each other about them.

Your all caught up in making an encyclopedia and forgot that this site can be used to solve the real world problems of the world!

If this guy is going to make good edits then he should be allowed to be disruptive here! Take all the spell checking he has done, and subtract the disruption, he is still more useful.

You say you want a nice encyclopedia, but you can't take a bit of incivility and disruption in the process!?!?

Apparently all it takes is the majority of admins to decide someone needs to be banned to do it! There needs to be a system where trusted people are chosen by the community to represent them! Admins are all chosen by Jimbo who hates trolls! WE DON'T GET PISSED OFF WHEN YOU POST INFORMATIVE USEFUL CONTENT ON OUR TROLLING GROUPS! WHY GET MAD WHEN WE TROLL YOUR ENCYCLOPEDIA!?!?

I don't like you at all - CiteMop

Umm was this a joke or a real complaint? CiteMop is an anagram of Timecop, but timecop does not write in that style. Not sure if you are being sarcastic, or just joining in. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's real complaint. Many of us didn't have the opportunity to go to school and so we have poor writing skills. Timecop, our fearless leader, picked up us from the street and taught us how to fight for our rights and against bigotry. We're all in debt with him 4 lyfe. He's a great man and a great leader. -- Femmina 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I only ask because it seems like an attempt to discredit the defense of Timecop. Pretending to join a side and then making untrue and rediculous arguments is a very old and common technique for discrediting that side. See Straw_man for more information.

You may be correct though. I don't think it was a sincere complaint, but I will assume good faith and respond as though it was.

1. No, he was not blocked because he is gay or black.
2. Wikipedia is not for chatting about opinions.
3. Wikipedia is not for solving the problems of the world, it is an encyclopedia.
4. Making good edits does not allow for disruptive behavior.
5. Admins are not chosen by Jimbo.
6. Admins are chosen by the community.
7. Please refrain from personal attacks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely, I don't know who wrote the complaint and why, and of course my previous comment was a metaphor and an attempt at sdramatizing this sad situation. Timecop didn't physically pick me up from the street, but in a sense what I wrote is entirely true, not only for me, but for many people in and out of that particular group you seem to dislike so much. In any case I would like to see the indefinite block placed on this user converted in a month long one or removed entirely. That's all I have to say. -- Femmina 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the GNAA, I don't know anything about it. This has nothing to do with any outside group, I have already said that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so, can I have a bulleted list, some excel-made pie charts and a powerpoint presentation all enclosed in a pink report box of your exact position so to avoid mistakes in the future? I'm joking. Thank you very much for your reply and your attention. -- Femmina 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking my edits

Hello HighInBC. I noticed that you've abused your position again, and tagged a logo which was shown on the 9/11 Public Discourse Project page (which has been on that page for over a year with no dispute) with 'this image had invalid fair use', and subsequently had it deleted, simply because I uploaded a non-jpeg version of the project logo. I think it's time you go on a extended wiki-break. Also, I would like a bulleted list of why that logo was 'invalid fair use' before I bring up this incident at the administrator notice board. --timecop 15:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for bullet points. The image said the source was unknown. To meet our fair use criteria the source must be known. It is common practice to remove fair use images that don't meet fair use criteria. It was not personal. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't lie. The project's website is one click away from the article, and the identical logo (which is exactly where the low-quality jpeg logo came from in the first place) is right there. Under Wikipedia:Logos it says using a logo off a website is perfectly acceptable. You deleted the image because of your ongoing crusade dedicated to pissing me off. Therefore, I'd like to see exact reasons why the image was deleted, and cite Wikipedia rules which were used referenced in the process. --61.114.193.19 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was me not logged in above. --timecop 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Two days later, still waiting for a response. --timecop 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

In response to this (lol), are you seriously that thick as to not see the reason for it? Laughing out LOUD. See, the problem here (incase you haven't noticed) is you taking the internet WAY TOO SERIOUSLY ^_^. With love, --timecop 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You think you guys solved a problem by blocking me? All you did was lost yet another useful editor, lol. Unlike some people, I don't take internet seriously. Oh, and various people have requested, mr hyinbc, why don't you fork over those 'threatening phone calls' recordings, I'd like to have a listen and laugh together with my GNAA buddies. --timecop 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations in relation to telephone calls

I am concerned that User:HighInBC's allegations about threatening telephone calls have not been either supported by evidence or retracted. Without any proof to back up such claims, any requests for unblock by this user (or reconsiderations of the rationale for this block by admins) should be considered only in light of on-wiki activities, unless of course it becomes a WP:OFFICE action. - Mark 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was not Timecop who made the phone calls, though it was someone associated with the "organisation", GNAA. Further, I understand that HighInBC has forwarded the information on to the WP:OFFICE people. HighInBC may be limited in what he can state due to WP:LEGAL, though this should not be taken to imply that HighInBC is taking any legal action. --Yamla 03:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Another editor has confirmed that an acquaintance made two calls to HighInBC, so we have this information from more than one source. Rklawton 05:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with information, or who wishes to defend the caller may e-mail me for contact information to the officer in charge and the case number. I am not discussing this on-wiki as it is now a legal matter. The call logs from my cell phone are in the possesion of this officer. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)