The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [1] [2] [3] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus [4] concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.
Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked. [5] [6] [7] [8] The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group." [23] [24] [25] [26] Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts (former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option.
This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of disruptive editing. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. Nick Graves 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't so much whether Bob Dylan converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled List of notable converts to Christianity until a few days ago. But Bob Dylan is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:
They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name change is all about Bob Dylan. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth. Bus stop 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The accusations check out: per WP:DE I've blocked Bus stop indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations. Durova Charge! 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitiely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. I will say this: If Tecmobowl agrees to join some kind of Mentorship program and agrees to a six week topic ban from baseball related articles to let the ill feelings die down, I will personally lift the block. SirFozzie 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Tecmobowl has engaged in disruptive editing over a long period of time, requiring IMHO a community ban for disruption. This comports with the suggestions of the admin in his sockpuppetry case this month, and a mediator today, as is discussed below.
He has engaged in disruptive editing. Specifically, he has engaged in gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies. Most importantly, he rejects community input: he resists moderation, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. He is tendentious: he continues editing a group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from a number of other editors. He violates Wikipedia:Verifiability in that he misrepresents reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. In addition, he violates other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and engages in sockpuppetry on a level that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on baseball articles.
Mediation Case. A mediation case, with 17 parties, was opened at [55]. That page discusses some of the issues.
The mediator closed the mediation today, writing:Sockpuppet; Admin Guidance to impose a Lengthy Block if there is other Disruptive Behavior. Furthermore, at [57] [58] the admin wrote 2 weeks ago:"It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise. I am going to close this mediation cabal request. My suggestions are to either go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo or go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for a binding solution, one that the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee can not give. FunPika 18:38, 27 June 2007 [56]"
"It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block."
3RR violations. Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion. [59]
Background. Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month. [60] Despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll, [61] despite an overhwelming consensus disagreeing with his view that the fangraphs EL (for example) should not be deleted, [62] and despite lack of consensus for his deleting wholesale ELs where no consensus for their deletion exists -- Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of the discussion on the baseball talk page. See [63]
This is highly disruptive. I have requested that he stop. He has refused. Instead, he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter." As to the alleged failure to focus on the content of the discussion, nothing could be further from the truth. A glance at the baseball project discussion page at the above url demonstrates that.
Tecmo, who deleted Fangraphs ELs claiming that they did not contain unique info, still refuses to recognize the consensus of their uniqueness, or the evidence of their uniqueness. Tecmo continues instead to delete such ELs. He has not agreed to restore urls that he has deleted where, upon discussion, it is found that there is no consensus for their deletion.
Indefinite Block. I believe that he should be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption.
Admitted Intention to Ignore Wiki Rules. Tecmo's attitude is captured in his edit in which he wrote:That illustrates his inability to work within the community, and his express problems with WP:OWN.-- Epeefleche 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules." [64]
Latest Block -- Today. Subsequent to my writing the above, Tecmo was just blocked today for the 5th time this month for violations of Wiki policy. [66] In pertinent part, the admin wrote:
"I have blocked you for 1 week, for disruption caused by your continued edit warring with other users on baseball related articles. You have been blocked several times for 3RR violations, and today you have reverted several articles 3 times..... I can see that a lot of people have been involved in trying to convince you to stop this pattern of editing, taking up a lot of their time. Once again, please try to curb this disruptive editing in future, and find a more constructive way to deal with such issues. TigerShark 21:47, 27 June 2007"
Tecmo's dismissive responses to that admin's admonition, and his expressions of his intent to continue his disruptive editing once his block is lifted, are accurately captured by Irishguy and Baseball Bugs above. Under the circumstances, the only appropriate course that I can see is to impose a straight ban.-- Epeefleche 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A more expedient process would be to show a recent declaration by Tecmobowl of the intent to disrupt Wikipedia, coupled by some diffs which show the implementation of the declaration. Admins have the power to block indefinitely (and hence impose a de facto ban) based on the intention and apparent manifestation of disruption. — Kurykh 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I first saw Tecmobowl's edits in a player article on my watchlist and was stunned to see the trail of link deletions he left in his wake. Even after repeated efforts to establish that there was a consenus for retention of this links, Tecombowl persisted with his deletions. He is clearly capable of qulaity work ( as discussed here with him), but these links have turned into his obsession. Warnings of potential 3RR violations from me and other editors went ignored and have resulted in blocks. Repeated pleas to respect consensus and to stop deleting links were rejected multiple times. This is not an issue of politeness; this is a situation where content was removed hundreds of times without any critical evaluation of the items deleted from the hundreds of articles he went through. Some of the items he has deleted included obituaries and other newspaper articles about the players, invaluable sources that are unavailable anywhere else. I would support any remedy that would allow Tecmobowl to continue with his positive edits and would exclude him from removing content. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to implement this solution. Given Tecmobowl's flagrant ignorance of consensus there seem to be few alternatives to an indefinite block. Alansohn 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Having read all the above, and despite my earlier conciliatory suggestion, I agree with the proposal to permanently end Tecmobowl's ability to edit wikipedia, by whatever administrative means is most appropriate. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow ... given the long, rambling response to Foz' proposal, I don't see any further need for leniency (though I had a hunch he'd turn it down). Ban. Blueboy 96 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The most compeling reason, for a permanent block against Tecmobowl is in fact how badly other editors react to him. I have defended Tecmobowl--if not for his actions, because another editor's actions were worse or equal, and Tecmo was getting the brunt of every punishment--which I never understood--still don't. I dislike punishing editors when I don't believe the fault lies with them, and I'm not entirely sure it does in this case. But I'm not sure what to do. It would seem that the easiest thing would be to get rid of Tecmobowl. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. But I don't think it would be getting rid of the real problem.
Tecmobowl is a difficult editor. When people snipe at him, he snipes back. He is touchy, very sensitive, and he has a particular view of the world. So when he reads WP:EL, sees an article that doesn't follow and makes an edit, and is reverted and reverted and reverted (without explanation)--and editors won't talk with him, he'll keep breaking 3RR. He has tried to get help--he's gone to WP:ANI, and MedCab, but every place he's gone, either he's been ignored, or his own bad behavior has been focused on.
Frankly, if the other editors who were interacting with Tecmo had behaved better, I don't think that there would have ever been a problem.
ELs
Conflict with Irishguy
"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."
"it is not advisable to post comments to a user talk page that are about an article. Many people, who do not read individual talk pages, would be left out of a potentially beneficial discussion. In the meantime, I have commented regarding the Kevin Youkilis situation on that talk page."
No wonder Tecmo went to IAR as a way of life. He wasn't able to improve the encyclopedia when he followed the rules, at least that's the way he saw it. He comments and no one responds to him except to either rise to the bait he set or to bait him. He got blocked for sockpuppeteering by an admin he'd been involved with, and then a checkuser came back negative. His edits, good and bad are clumped together and written off as coming from him. Epeefleche managaed to successfully avoid discussion, and win through reversion for almost three weeks. He was able to say "no, I don't want to talk" and keep another editor from editing. No wonder Tecmo got blocked again and again for 3RR. He believed in his edits, and no one would explain why they disagreed. Tecmo might have reacted badly, but no one should be forced to wait three weeks for an explanation. People talk about consensus and Tecmo, but that's not the way it works. Tecmo cited consensus and if someone disagrees, "I'm too busy to tell you why" isn't an adequate explanation. I believe that Tecmo really wants to improve Wikipedia. He just started running out of ways how. Tecmo may have problems--problems getting along with other people, just problems in general, but he can be handled. I don't think any of the big issues that came from this would come to pass if it weren't for simply abysmal behavior on the parts of other editors. And while Tecmo's actions may have instigated things, I'm not ok with banning one editor because of communal jackassery.
There are methods for dealing with problem editors. The biggest one is to NOT add fuel to the fire and that was done at almost every possible opportunity. It's a pity too, because from what I've seen, the people involved in this are on the whole, good editors, and they can get along if they can just learn to put their personal issues aside.
What's the solution? I don't know. I think Tecmo being adopted by an administrator who is calm, patient and really willing to invest a little time would be great. He listens, as long as he's being talked to the right way. When people are being rude or dissmissive, he's out the door. There's a lot that he could learn from being adopted, and I think it could help the situation overall. When Tecmo is right, and it's more often then people think, he has no legitimacy, and so people run roughshod over him. Adoption might really help the situation. Personally, I'd like to see the wikiproject adopted. It's not just Tecmo who avoids article talk pages and makes personal attacks. And I don't think that the general behavior that I've seen by other editors is really related. No one acted better when Tecmo was banned any other time--I don't see why it would help (in regard to general behavior) now. Miss Mondegreen talk 23:48, June 30 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with User:Lazyannie, even while the page is protected, to claim that Lucy Ball is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks. Miranda 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Markstreet and sockpuppets, as well as William Mauco and EvilAlex are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behaviour_of_Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. Friday (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board... WjB scribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Wikipedia is probably a good idea at this time. Nick 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything. Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead. Dmcdevit· t 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."
Rama's Arrow ( talk · contribs) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.
This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.
You may view the full case decision at the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted an unblock request posted here as a violation of WP:SOCK. If the editor wishes to appeal under these circumstances then the proper channel is to e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation. Here's their contact information. [71] Durova Charge! 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing debate as discussion is detering off here. If TJ Spyke would like to request an unblock and provide an explanation to the community and/or to willing administrator(s) that he could behave in according to policy, then he should do so on his talk page. The blocking admin, who placed the current indefinite block on TJ Spyke, is User:Alkivar. — Moe ε 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've about had it with this fellow. I blocked him a while back for 9RR. At the time I left him a big message about needing to watch his step in future. Clearly, he did not pay attention, because he's just been blocked again for edit-warring, and his block log is very lengthy, nearly all composed of 3RR blocks. He is clearly not getting it.
Therefore, I suggest that as a community we place TJ Spyke on revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he violates this, he may be blocked for any length of time up to a week. After three such blocks, the next block length may be indefinite. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. Moreschi Talk 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I think this is entirely uncalled for.
He's been blocked at least twice for fighting vandalism. (That's how I choose to describe an action which includes removing a deletion notice simply because "articles have souls" and spyke must not have a soul for wanting to delete them)
His most recent block was not for 3RR, but for 'edit-warring', which included in an article that was being constantly vandalized over and over again, including not only unsourced content, but even removing requests for sources.
I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes, but he's been doing the best he can, has gone from flagrant 3RRs to trying very hard not to break it (To some, that's gaming the system. But when it comes to outright unsourced info from anonymous ips, it's still understandable, even if you don't approve of it).
Not a single thing even remotely suggests that he's trying to be disruptive, or edit-war with good-faith editors.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit unfair to put up a CS notice on someone who's just been blocked for ten days, and won't be able to defend himself for a week. Even if you want to try something like this, it needs to wait. Let the guy defend himself.
Bladestorm 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Even though I'd prefer to let him defend himself first, I still feel compelled to point some things out.
First, the danger of the 'block log'. While although they can be valuable for keeping track of actual disruptive influences, they're also a way to propagate error. For example, Spyke has been wrongly blocked at least three times (Yes, I intend to prove that). However, those blocks were still used against him. That is, future blocks are justified by prior blocks, some of which weren't even valid to begin with.
They "poison the well".
Anyways, he's been blocked 12 times. An impressive number.
Now then, considering everything here... Yes. 12 blocks.
Three were absolutely invalid. So, 9 blocks.
At least three directly cited past blocks which included invalid blocks.
At least one was by someone who had already imposed an invalid block due to their not examining the article's history closely enough.
There are only 6 blocks that aren't either immediately invalid, and that don't at all cite previous blocks that include invalid blocks. That is, a maximum of 6 untainted blocks.
Six is still a lot. Personally, I have none. But the bulk of spyke's actual bad behaviour is behind him. I think this is worth remembering.
Also, if anyone has a problem with me calling blocks 'invalid', I'd prefer they directly address those concerns. Tell me which ones were valid, so I can explain it better. Because I don't take that kind of statement lightly. If I say it was 'invalid', then I mean it was obviously invalid. (maybe not to the admin at the time, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, absolutely and certainly invalid)
I can't count the number of times I've argued with spyke. The number of edits of his that I didn't like. But what I've come to learn is that he really is a positive influence overall here. And, again, I'm prepared to defend and properly explain any claims I've made here, so please don't just dismiss any of them.
Bladestorm 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, Moreschi. Maybe some form of mentorship would be appropriate as well. Blueboy 96 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly support this sanction. If I assume that what everything Bladestorm said is true, then 6 of those blocks are entirely legit, and in 3 others he got blocked for a legitimate reason in spite of the fact that the admins were taking tainted data into account. So in 9 instances he deserved a block, and it was for the same reason every time. That is totally unacceptable. I take his recent edit warring without going over 3RR as spitting in the face of Wikipedia policies. He isn't stupid. He understands full well that he is not supposed to revert edits made in good faith anymore if the revert is contested, and if the person refuses to talk that he is supposed to go through the dispute resolution process. Why he refuses to do so is anyone's guess, but the reason for his refusal is irrelevant. He continues to ignore the policies, and a stronger message must be sent. WP:AGF doesn't apply to him anymore. This has been explained to him on too many occasions for him to not get it. He is an adult, and he must be reprimanded like an adult who constantly harasses his coworkers would be. This behavior is absurd. The Hybrid 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If TJ Spyke hasn't gotten the point that revert warring is bad yet, then a revert parole seems to be the most appropriate course of action to make him realize that he needs to discuss changes he makes and makes sure that consensus and conventions are in line with what he's doing rather than reverting being the immediate course of action. I also suggest that after this 250-hour block is over that someone moniter that reverting more heavily than before, because somehow I don't think that the reverting will cease completely. — Moe ε 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to a sockpuppet being discovered, I believe that a six month ban and an infinite revert parole would be the best way to deal with this. The Hyb rid 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you do me a huge favor? User:74.36.18.128 recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to User:TJ Spyke? — Moe Epsilon 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably is. But nothing definitive. -- Jpgordon 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite the recent sockpuppet User:Lrrr IV being found out as being a TJ Spyke sockpuppet, I did a WHOIS search on the IP address that vandalized my userpage amd it came from Rochester, New York, same location as TJ Spyke, and Jpgordan as I cross-posted above, has done a CheckUser that, despite definitive evidence, says it probably was TJ Spyke. I propose a longer block than 1 month is applied to TJ Spyke. — Moe ε 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think. Davnel03 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And it goes without saying that if he doesn't accept, he's done here. Too bad Moreschi's on Wikibreak ... we could ask his view on it. Blueboy 96 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, here's a third proposal:
What do we think to that? Looking at it now three months is too short, but 6 months is too long, so I've done 4 1/2 months. Davnel03 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How will it be proven that he has changed, if he can't even edit? -- Kings bibby win 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:
So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin ( talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even the right place to take this one, but here goes. If anyone can suggest a better way to handle this, I'd be keen to hear. User:Elvisandhismagicpelvis has been a member of Wikipedia for a month, during which time he has made 70 edits. Of those edits, a handful have been constructive, but the majority are blatant edit warring and trolling. You can literally count off the constructive edits on one hand. I'm not suggesting an all out ban here, as I feel this user does have the ability to make a positive contribution to WP, but this user continually disrupts wikipedia with his constant reverting. I'd like to suggest that this user be banned from performing reverts in sporting articles (except for obvious vandalism).
Most of his edits can be broken up into the following sections:
[79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
This one is petty, and I'm ashamed to have been involved in it, but the article has been fine for years, and the change was briefly discussed on the talk page. The user wants references to "Rugby league" changed to "Rugby league football", apparently because "Australian rules football" uses the word football. (I note ironically that the user is not trying to change "Rugby union" in the same way). This user feels that every other editor's opinion is flawed by other users' bias, and this his position is the only right one, and that he is therefore justified in going against consensus. [98]
This one is a bit harder to follow. The user claimed in this edit that the ban of Rugby league in France during the war years was part of a nazi conspiracy to promote "reactionary sports like soccer and rugby union". He cited an image on imageshack, which was a scan of a French letter. Another editor disputed the interpretation of the source, [99] and the edit war began: [100] [101] [102] [103] [104].
This user reverted a set of my edits because he had edited the same page before: [105]. I was accused of wikistalking. The user had referenced his edit history in a talk page post (defending the value of his contributions). I looked at a couple of his edits, and found that the article had plenty of room for improvement (links in headings, attempted link to an external image, an out of date external link). Despite me politely explaining this to him, he still believes that I only edited the page to "annoy him".
General trolling: [106].
Mark Chovain 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy 96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
To Blueboy 96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Wikipedia by ScienceApologist, [118] after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks, [119] [120] [121] [122], and was harassed by another editor. [123] -- 83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Wikipedia, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Wikipedia is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" --
Girls4girls 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Obvious Suspected meatpuppet of Iantresman
Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.
The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!
ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.
NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!
Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)
I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.
I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:
(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Wikipedia processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)
-- Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. -- Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This really is outright disgusting.
I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained
here. Also, note that the category was recreated by
User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole
contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to
User:Mainstream astronomy.
Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no.
Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin ( talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been involved in a disagreement with user
User:Chrisjnelson for some time. I have opened up a variety of RD's, and the guy refuses to enter into mediation. I have reported his violations of NPA and OWN and nothing was done. I have tried to be civil and nice with this person, I have tried to avoid him and he follows me. I have finally lost all patience with him. Despite my attempts to rework content on the
Michael Vick article, he has recently jumped in and started edit warring with me AGAIN. I've had to have another article locked 2x because of this. I have just personally attacked him in the hopes that drives him away. Nobody here is stepping up to get this guy to behave civily. After filing WA, RFC, RFM's, i see no reason why i need to jump through any more hoops to get this guy off my back. Someone ban him and get him away from me! Is this the right place for this message? I have no idea.... but I'm so fed up with this...please just get him off my back. You can see the majority of this dispute at
Template talk:Infobox NFLactive.
Juan Miguel Fangio|
►Chat 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What contributions to Wikipedia does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? -- Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's sad. I've been working with Tobias for years now, and yes, he's done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, but his civility issues have only gotten worse. It started a long time ago when he seemed to think he was always right, and anyone who criticized him was wrong and somehow against him. This escalated over the years to having a martyr complex and being extremely passive aggressive - he never does anything wrong, it's everyone else who's wrong, and they're attacking him; but he'll never actually do anything about these perceived wrongs, he'll just mutter to himself or make a list and whine, but not do anything about it. It's sad that it's come to this, and I won't support a community block, but I won't oppose one either. I look at Tobias like I do User:Wik - An extremely valuable contributor who just ended up going crazy or something, becoming absolutely incompatible with the community. His obsession with 'transparency' and harassment of board members, past and present, and finally his IP hopping, is the final straw. He seems to have given up any pretense of wanting to work on the encyclopedia, and his entire purpose is to complain about his valid blocks. -- Golbez 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Implementation was recorded on the RfAr page ++ Lar: t/ c 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop makes positive contributions to the field of visual arts but engages in tendentious WP:OR on topics that relate to Judaism. After a previous CSN discussion I applied an indefinite block, also offering to restore editing privileges if Bus stop obtained formal mentorship and pledged to avoid two articles: Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Bus stop returned to editing with Fred Bauder as mentor.
On 24 July 2006 I received several petitions for intervention because Bus stop was disrupting the Who is a Jew? article. I full protected that page for a week and left messages for Bus stop and Fred Bauder. Bus stop's reaction was so negative that I opened my decision for review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive96#Impartial_evaluation_requested and received unanimous support.
Since that time Bus stop has caused additional disruption at several Judaism-related articles and talk pages. This editor attempts to dictate content without supplying references and refuses to compromise. Another administrator has protected the "Jew" article, in part because of Bus stop's disruption.
Recent disruption:
Fred Bauder has responded to my query offline and supports banning. I propose a full Judaism topic ban for Bus stop as an alternative to sitebanning. Bus stop would not be welcome to post to talk pages on this subject. Durova Charge! 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
of genuine, recent disruption.
Talk page issue: my reasoning for proposing a prohibition from talk pages is that this editor essentially uses them for soapboxing, which distracts attention from article-building discussions. This editor returned from a siteban and accepted a two article ban, only to initiate a very similar pattern of disruption at another article until it had to be full protected. When I posted polite cautions this editor blanked them with spurious claims of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then embarked upon the same disruption at several other articles. That looks to me like gaming the system.
Although I'm not absolutely opposed to some one-talk-page-post-a-day solution if that's what other editors prefer, this editor's pattern of behavior leads me to suspect he or she would comply in a manner that subverts the opportunity, such as posting once a day to each of a large number of talk pages. There are better ways to spend time than check up on someone to that extent and then craft yet another topic ban. So if someone has a counterproposal that's immune to gaming I'm all ears. Durova Charge! 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban for one year, + 90 day probation - If he is still here in a year, he very likely will have matured into a good editor. If he can maintain impulse self control for a few months, all restrictions should be lifted. -
Crockspot 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread. Throw in Godwin's law. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by disruption to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on. Durova Charge! 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [1] [2] [3] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus [4] concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.
Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked. [5] [6] [7] [8] The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group." [23] [24] [25] [26] Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts (former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option.
This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of disruptive editing. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. Nick Graves 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue isn't so much whether Bob Dylan converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled List of notable converts to Christianity until a few days ago. But Bob Dylan is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:
They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name change is all about Bob Dylan. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth. Bus stop 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The accusations check out: per WP:DE I've blocked Bus stop indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations. Durova Charge! 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitiely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. I will say this: If Tecmobowl agrees to join some kind of Mentorship program and agrees to a six week topic ban from baseball related articles to let the ill feelings die down, I will personally lift the block. SirFozzie 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Tecmobowl has engaged in disruptive editing over a long period of time, requiring IMHO a community ban for disruption. This comports with the suggestions of the admin in his sockpuppetry case this month, and a mediator today, as is discussed below.
He has engaged in disruptive editing. Specifically, he has engaged in gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies. Most importantly, he rejects community input: he resists moderation, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators. He is tendentious: he continues editing a group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from a number of other editors. He violates Wikipedia:Verifiability in that he misrepresents reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. In addition, he violates other policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, and engages in sockpuppetry on a level that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on baseball articles.
Mediation Case. A mediation case, with 17 parties, was opened at [55]. That page discusses some of the issues.
The mediator closed the mediation today, writing:Sockpuppet; Admin Guidance to impose a Lengthy Block if there is other Disruptive Behavior. Furthermore, at [57] [58] the admin wrote 2 weeks ago:"It has come to my attention that Tecmo has once again been deleting more ELs.... Telling by the behavior of Tecmobowl, it is virtually impossible to create a compromise. I am going to close this mediation cabal request. My suggestions are to either go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo or go to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for a binding solution, one that the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee can not give. FunPika 18:38, 27 June 2007 [56]"
"It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block."
3RR violations. Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion. [59]
Background. Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month. [60] Despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll, [61] despite an overhwelming consensus disagreeing with his view that the fangraphs EL (for example) should not be deleted, [62] and despite lack of consensus for his deleting wholesale ELs where no consensus for their deletion exists -- Tecmo is back deleting the ELs that are the very subject of the discussion on the baseball talk page. See [63]
This is highly disruptive. I have requested that he stop. He has refused. Instead, he writes that "WP:EL supersedes that discussion. That's all there is to it. You and the other editors that have a problem with me (and you know who i'm talking about) - absolutely refuse to focus on the content of the discussion in a simple and focused matter." As to the alleged failure to focus on the content of the discussion, nothing could be further from the truth. A glance at the baseball project discussion page at the above url demonstrates that.
Tecmo, who deleted Fangraphs ELs claiming that they did not contain unique info, still refuses to recognize the consensus of their uniqueness, or the evidence of their uniqueness. Tecmo continues instead to delete such ELs. He has not agreed to restore urls that he has deleted where, upon discussion, it is found that there is no consensus for their deletion.
Indefinite Block. I believe that he should be blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption.
Admitted Intention to Ignore Wiki Rules. Tecmo's attitude is captured in his edit in which he wrote:That illustrates his inability to work within the community, and his express problems with WP:OWN.-- Epeefleche 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules." [64]
Latest Block -- Today. Subsequent to my writing the above, Tecmo was just blocked today for the 5th time this month for violations of Wiki policy. [66] In pertinent part, the admin wrote:
"I have blocked you for 1 week, for disruption caused by your continued edit warring with other users on baseball related articles. You have been blocked several times for 3RR violations, and today you have reverted several articles 3 times..... I can see that a lot of people have been involved in trying to convince you to stop this pattern of editing, taking up a lot of their time. Once again, please try to curb this disruptive editing in future, and find a more constructive way to deal with such issues. TigerShark 21:47, 27 June 2007"
Tecmo's dismissive responses to that admin's admonition, and his expressions of his intent to continue his disruptive editing once his block is lifted, are accurately captured by Irishguy and Baseball Bugs above. Under the circumstances, the only appropriate course that I can see is to impose a straight ban.-- Epeefleche 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A more expedient process would be to show a recent declaration by Tecmobowl of the intent to disrupt Wikipedia, coupled by some diffs which show the implementation of the declaration. Admins have the power to block indefinitely (and hence impose a de facto ban) based on the intention and apparent manifestation of disruption. — Kurykh 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I first saw Tecmobowl's edits in a player article on my watchlist and was stunned to see the trail of link deletions he left in his wake. Even after repeated efforts to establish that there was a consenus for retention of this links, Tecombowl persisted with his deletions. He is clearly capable of qulaity work ( as discussed here with him), but these links have turned into his obsession. Warnings of potential 3RR violations from me and other editors went ignored and have resulted in blocks. Repeated pleas to respect consensus and to stop deleting links were rejected multiple times. This is not an issue of politeness; this is a situation where content was removed hundreds of times without any critical evaluation of the items deleted from the hundreds of articles he went through. Some of the items he has deleted included obituaries and other newspaper articles about the players, invaluable sources that are unavailable anywhere else. I would support any remedy that would allow Tecmobowl to continue with his positive edits and would exclude him from removing content. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to implement this solution. Given Tecmobowl's flagrant ignorance of consensus there seem to be few alternatives to an indefinite block. Alansohn 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Having read all the above, and despite my earlier conciliatory suggestion, I agree with the proposal to permanently end Tecmobowl's ability to edit wikipedia, by whatever administrative means is most appropriate. Baseball Bugs 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow ... given the long, rambling response to Foz' proposal, I don't see any further need for leniency (though I had a hunch he'd turn it down). Ban. Blueboy 96 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The most compeling reason, for a permanent block against Tecmobowl is in fact how badly other editors react to him. I have defended Tecmobowl--if not for his actions, because another editor's actions were worse or equal, and Tecmo was getting the brunt of every punishment--which I never understood--still don't. I dislike punishing editors when I don't believe the fault lies with them, and I'm not entirely sure it does in this case. But I'm not sure what to do. It would seem that the easiest thing would be to get rid of Tecmobowl. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. But I don't think it would be getting rid of the real problem.
Tecmobowl is a difficult editor. When people snipe at him, he snipes back. He is touchy, very sensitive, and he has a particular view of the world. So when he reads WP:EL, sees an article that doesn't follow and makes an edit, and is reverted and reverted and reverted (without explanation)--and editors won't talk with him, he'll keep breaking 3RR. He has tried to get help--he's gone to WP:ANI, and MedCab, but every place he's gone, either he's been ignored, or his own bad behavior has been focused on.
Frankly, if the other editors who were interacting with Tecmo had behaved better, I don't think that there would have ever been a problem.
ELs
Conflict with Irishguy
"Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments."
"it is not advisable to post comments to a user talk page that are about an article. Many people, who do not read individual talk pages, would be left out of a potentially beneficial discussion. In the meantime, I have commented regarding the Kevin Youkilis situation on that talk page."
No wonder Tecmo went to IAR as a way of life. He wasn't able to improve the encyclopedia when he followed the rules, at least that's the way he saw it. He comments and no one responds to him except to either rise to the bait he set or to bait him. He got blocked for sockpuppeteering by an admin he'd been involved with, and then a checkuser came back negative. His edits, good and bad are clumped together and written off as coming from him. Epeefleche managaed to successfully avoid discussion, and win through reversion for almost three weeks. He was able to say "no, I don't want to talk" and keep another editor from editing. No wonder Tecmo got blocked again and again for 3RR. He believed in his edits, and no one would explain why they disagreed. Tecmo might have reacted badly, but no one should be forced to wait three weeks for an explanation. People talk about consensus and Tecmo, but that's not the way it works. Tecmo cited consensus and if someone disagrees, "I'm too busy to tell you why" isn't an adequate explanation. I believe that Tecmo really wants to improve Wikipedia. He just started running out of ways how. Tecmo may have problems--problems getting along with other people, just problems in general, but he can be handled. I don't think any of the big issues that came from this would come to pass if it weren't for simply abysmal behavior on the parts of other editors. And while Tecmo's actions may have instigated things, I'm not ok with banning one editor because of communal jackassery.
There are methods for dealing with problem editors. The biggest one is to NOT add fuel to the fire and that was done at almost every possible opportunity. It's a pity too, because from what I've seen, the people involved in this are on the whole, good editors, and they can get along if they can just learn to put their personal issues aside.
What's the solution? I don't know. I think Tecmo being adopted by an administrator who is calm, patient and really willing to invest a little time would be great. He listens, as long as he's being talked to the right way. When people are being rude or dissmissive, he's out the door. There's a lot that he could learn from being adopted, and I think it could help the situation overall. When Tecmo is right, and it's more often then people think, he has no legitimacy, and so people run roughshod over him. Adoption might really help the situation. Personally, I'd like to see the wikiproject adopted. It's not just Tecmo who avoids article talk pages and makes personal attacks. And I don't think that the general behavior that I've seen by other editors is really related. No one acted better when Tecmo was banned any other time--I don't see why it would help (in regard to general behavior) now. Miss Mondegreen talk 23:48, June 30 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).
For the Arbitration Committee,
-
Penwhale |
Blast him /
Follow his steps 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with User:Lazyannie, even while the page is protected, to claim that Lucy Ball is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks. Miranda 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Markstreet and sockpuppets, as well as William Mauco and EvilAlex are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel( Talk) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He's apparently determined to consistently dismiss any communications from other editors. I see this as being fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative project. Thus, I recommend an indefinite block until he changes his approach, but as he's a long-time contributor, this probably shouldn't be done lightly. I'm open to other approaches or venues (RFC?) but I'm not sure it would help- he knows exactly what the problem is, and he chooses to continue being unresponsive anyway. I've seen this general issue as an ongoing problem for probably at least a year, but apparently it's getting worse lately. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Behaviour_of_Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. I can't think of many realistic options at this point. Friday (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wholly inappropriate at this stage; I would recommend an RfC. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think anything has occured that needs discussion on this board... WjB scribe 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest desysopping with the user remaining in good standing. I think a nice rest (no, not an enforced Wikibreak) away from Wikipedia is probably a good idea at this time. Nick 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think reporting another administrator at a noticeboard and suggesting an immediate indefinite block is productive at all, and is only likely to produce drama. Such an act of insensitivity would only inflame the situation, and likely drive away a contributor, rather than solve anything. Premature block requests instead of dispute resolution look like nothing more than drama-seeking, and are likely to drown out the legitimate concerns at hand. I suggest this thread be archived to prevent that outcome, and the people involved pursue a constructive line of discourse instead. Dmcdevit· t 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."
Rama's Arrow ( talk · contribs) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.
This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.
You may view the full case decision at the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted an unblock request posted here as a violation of WP:SOCK. If the editor wishes to appeal under these circumstances then the proper channel is to e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation. Here's their contact information. [71] Durova Charge! 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closing debate as discussion is detering off here. If TJ Spyke would like to request an unblock and provide an explanation to the community and/or to willing administrator(s) that he could behave in according to policy, then he should do so on his talk page. The blocking admin, who placed the current indefinite block on TJ Spyke, is User:Alkivar. — Moe ε 03:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I've about had it with this fellow. I blocked him a while back for 9RR. At the time I left him a big message about needing to watch his step in future. Clearly, he did not pay attention, because he's just been blocked again for edit-warring, and his block log is very lengthy, nearly all composed of 3RR blocks. He is clearly not getting it.
Therefore, I suggest that as a community we place TJ Spyke on revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he violates this, he may be blocked for any length of time up to a week. After three such blocks, the next block length may be indefinite. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. Moreschi Talk 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I think this is entirely uncalled for.
He's been blocked at least twice for fighting vandalism. (That's how I choose to describe an action which includes removing a deletion notice simply because "articles have souls" and spyke must not have a soul for wanting to delete them)
His most recent block was not for 3RR, but for 'edit-warring', which included in an article that was being constantly vandalized over and over again, including not only unsourced content, but even removing requests for sources.
I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes, but he's been doing the best he can, has gone from flagrant 3RRs to trying very hard not to break it (To some, that's gaming the system. But when it comes to outright unsourced info from anonymous ips, it's still understandable, even if you don't approve of it).
Not a single thing even remotely suggests that he's trying to be disruptive, or edit-war with good-faith editors.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit unfair to put up a CS notice on someone who's just been blocked for ten days, and won't be able to defend himself for a week. Even if you want to try something like this, it needs to wait. Let the guy defend himself.
Bladestorm 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Even though I'd prefer to let him defend himself first, I still feel compelled to point some things out.
First, the danger of the 'block log'. While although they can be valuable for keeping track of actual disruptive influences, they're also a way to propagate error. For example, Spyke has been wrongly blocked at least three times (Yes, I intend to prove that). However, those blocks were still used against him. That is, future blocks are justified by prior blocks, some of which weren't even valid to begin with.
They "poison the well".
Anyways, he's been blocked 12 times. An impressive number.
Now then, considering everything here... Yes. 12 blocks.
Three were absolutely invalid. So, 9 blocks.
At least three directly cited past blocks which included invalid blocks.
At least one was by someone who had already imposed an invalid block due to their not examining the article's history closely enough.
There are only 6 blocks that aren't either immediately invalid, and that don't at all cite previous blocks that include invalid blocks. That is, a maximum of 6 untainted blocks.
Six is still a lot. Personally, I have none. But the bulk of spyke's actual bad behaviour is behind him. I think this is worth remembering.
Also, if anyone has a problem with me calling blocks 'invalid', I'd prefer they directly address those concerns. Tell me which ones were valid, so I can explain it better. Because I don't take that kind of statement lightly. If I say it was 'invalid', then I mean it was obviously invalid. (maybe not to the admin at the time, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, absolutely and certainly invalid)
I can't count the number of times I've argued with spyke. The number of edits of his that I didn't like. But what I've come to learn is that he really is a positive influence overall here. And, again, I'm prepared to defend and properly explain any claims I've made here, so please don't just dismiss any of them.
Bladestorm 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, Moreschi. Maybe some form of mentorship would be appropriate as well. Blueboy 96 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly support this sanction. If I assume that what everything Bladestorm said is true, then 6 of those blocks are entirely legit, and in 3 others he got blocked for a legitimate reason in spite of the fact that the admins were taking tainted data into account. So in 9 instances he deserved a block, and it was for the same reason every time. That is totally unacceptable. I take his recent edit warring without going over 3RR as spitting in the face of Wikipedia policies. He isn't stupid. He understands full well that he is not supposed to revert edits made in good faith anymore if the revert is contested, and if the person refuses to talk that he is supposed to go through the dispute resolution process. Why he refuses to do so is anyone's guess, but the reason for his refusal is irrelevant. He continues to ignore the policies, and a stronger message must be sent. WP:AGF doesn't apply to him anymore. This has been explained to him on too many occasions for him to not get it. He is an adult, and he must be reprimanded like an adult who constantly harasses his coworkers would be. This behavior is absurd. The Hybrid 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
If TJ Spyke hasn't gotten the point that revert warring is bad yet, then a revert parole seems to be the most appropriate course of action to make him realize that he needs to discuss changes he makes and makes sure that consensus and conventions are in line with what he's doing rather than reverting being the immediate course of action. I also suggest that after this 250-hour block is over that someone moniter that reverting more heavily than before, because somehow I don't think that the reverting will cease completely. — Moe ε 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to a sockpuppet being discovered, I believe that a six month ban and an infinite revert parole would be the best way to deal with this. The Hyb rid 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you do me a huge favor? User:74.36.18.128 recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to User:TJ Spyke? — Moe Epsilon 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably is. But nothing definitive. -- Jpgordon 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite the recent sockpuppet User:Lrrr IV being found out as being a TJ Spyke sockpuppet, I did a WHOIS search on the IP address that vandalized my userpage amd it came from Rochester, New York, same location as TJ Spyke, and Jpgordan as I cross-posted above, has done a CheckUser that, despite definitive evidence, says it probably was TJ Spyke. I propose a longer block than 1 month is applied to TJ Spyke. — Moe ε 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think. Davnel03 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
And it goes without saying that if he doesn't accept, he's done here. Too bad Moreschi's on Wikibreak ... we could ask his view on it. Blueboy 96 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, here's a third proposal:
What do we think to that? Looking at it now three months is too short, but 6 months is too long, so I've done 4 1/2 months. Davnel03 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How will it be proven that he has changed, if he can't even edit? -- Kings bibby win 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:
So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin ( talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is even the right place to take this one, but here goes. If anyone can suggest a better way to handle this, I'd be keen to hear. User:Elvisandhismagicpelvis has been a member of Wikipedia for a month, during which time he has made 70 edits. Of those edits, a handful have been constructive, but the majority are blatant edit warring and trolling. You can literally count off the constructive edits on one hand. I'm not suggesting an all out ban here, as I feel this user does have the ability to make a positive contribution to WP, but this user continually disrupts wikipedia with his constant reverting. I'd like to suggest that this user be banned from performing reverts in sporting articles (except for obvious vandalism).
Most of his edits can be broken up into the following sections:
[79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
This one is petty, and I'm ashamed to have been involved in it, but the article has been fine for years, and the change was briefly discussed on the talk page. The user wants references to "Rugby league" changed to "Rugby league football", apparently because "Australian rules football" uses the word football. (I note ironically that the user is not trying to change "Rugby union" in the same way). This user feels that every other editor's opinion is flawed by other users' bias, and this his position is the only right one, and that he is therefore justified in going against consensus. [98]
This one is a bit harder to follow. The user claimed in this edit that the ban of Rugby league in France during the war years was part of a nazi conspiracy to promote "reactionary sports like soccer and rugby union". He cited an image on imageshack, which was a scan of a French letter. Another editor disputed the interpretation of the source, [99] and the edit war began: [100] [101] [102] [103] [104].
This user reverted a set of my edits because he had edited the same page before: [105]. I was accused of wikistalking. The user had referenced his edit history in a talk page post (defending the value of his contributions). I looked at a couple of his edits, and found that the article had plenty of room for improvement (links in headings, attempted link to an external image, an out of date external link). Despite me politely explaining this to him, he still believes that I only edited the page to "annoy him".
General trolling: [106].
Mark Chovain 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy 96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
To Blueboy 96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Wikipedia by ScienceApologist, [118] after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks, [119] [120] [121] [122], and was harassed by another editor. [123] -- 83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Wikipedia, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Wikipedia is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" --
Girls4girls 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Obvious Suspected meatpuppet of Iantresman
Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.
The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!
ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.
NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!
Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)
I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.
I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:
(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Wikipedia processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)
-- Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. -- Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This really is outright disgusting.
I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained
here. Also, note that the category was recreated by
User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole
contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to
User:Mainstream astronomy.
Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no.
Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin ( talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been involved in a disagreement with user
User:Chrisjnelson for some time. I have opened up a variety of RD's, and the guy refuses to enter into mediation. I have reported his violations of NPA and OWN and nothing was done. I have tried to be civil and nice with this person, I have tried to avoid him and he follows me. I have finally lost all patience with him. Despite my attempts to rework content on the
Michael Vick article, he has recently jumped in and started edit warring with me AGAIN. I've had to have another article locked 2x because of this. I have just personally attacked him in the hopes that drives him away. Nobody here is stepping up to get this guy to behave civily. After filing WA, RFC, RFM's, i see no reason why i need to jump through any more hoops to get this guy off my back. Someone ban him and get him away from me! Is this the right place for this message? I have no idea.... but I'm so fed up with this...please just get him off my back. You can see the majority of this dispute at
Template talk:Infobox NFLactive.
Juan Miguel Fangio|
►Chat 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What contributions to Wikipedia does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? -- Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's sad. I've been working with Tobias for years now, and yes, he's done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, but his civility issues have only gotten worse. It started a long time ago when he seemed to think he was always right, and anyone who criticized him was wrong and somehow against him. This escalated over the years to having a martyr complex and being extremely passive aggressive - he never does anything wrong, it's everyone else who's wrong, and they're attacking him; but he'll never actually do anything about these perceived wrongs, he'll just mutter to himself or make a list and whine, but not do anything about it. It's sad that it's come to this, and I won't support a community block, but I won't oppose one either. I look at Tobias like I do User:Wik - An extremely valuable contributor who just ended up going crazy or something, becoming absolutely incompatible with the community. His obsession with 'transparency' and harassment of board members, past and present, and finally his IP hopping, is the final straw. He seems to have given up any pretense of wanting to work on the encyclopedia, and his entire purpose is to complain about his valid blocks. -- Golbez 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Implementation was recorded on the RfAr page ++ Lar: t/ c 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop makes positive contributions to the field of visual arts but engages in tendentious WP:OR on topics that relate to Judaism. After a previous CSN discussion I applied an indefinite block, also offering to restore editing privileges if Bus stop obtained formal mentorship and pledged to avoid two articles: Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Bus stop returned to editing with Fred Bauder as mentor.
On 24 July 2006 I received several petitions for intervention because Bus stop was disrupting the Who is a Jew? article. I full protected that page for a week and left messages for Bus stop and Fred Bauder. Bus stop's reaction was so negative that I opened my decision for review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive96#Impartial_evaluation_requested and received unanimous support.
Since that time Bus stop has caused additional disruption at several Judaism-related articles and talk pages. This editor attempts to dictate content without supplying references and refuses to compromise. Another administrator has protected the "Jew" article, in part because of Bus stop's disruption.
Recent disruption:
Fred Bauder has responded to my query offline and supports banning. I propose a full Judaism topic ban for Bus stop as an alternative to sitebanning. Bus stop would not be welcome to post to talk pages on this subject. Durova Charge! 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
of genuine, recent disruption.
Talk page issue: my reasoning for proposing a prohibition from talk pages is that this editor essentially uses them for soapboxing, which distracts attention from article-building discussions. This editor returned from a siteban and accepted a two article ban, only to initiate a very similar pattern of disruption at another article until it had to be full protected. When I posted polite cautions this editor blanked them with spurious claims of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then embarked upon the same disruption at several other articles. That looks to me like gaming the system.
Although I'm not absolutely opposed to some one-talk-page-post-a-day solution if that's what other editors prefer, this editor's pattern of behavior leads me to suspect he or she would comply in a manner that subverts the opportunity, such as posting once a day to each of a large number of talk pages. There are better ways to spend time than check up on someone to that extent and then craft yet another topic ban. So if someone has a counterproposal that's immune to gaming I'm all ears. Durova Charge! 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Support topic ban for one year, + 90 day probation - If he is still here in a year, he very likely will have matured into a good editor. If he can maintain impulse self control for a few months, all restrictions should be lifted. -
Crockspot 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread. Throw in Godwin's law. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by disruption to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on. Durova Charge! 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)