| Revision as of 19:51, 1 July 2007 view sourceIrishguy (talk | contribs)45,851 edits →Comment from Miss Mondegreen: comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:45, 3 June 2022 view source Xaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,871 edits nav request |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{historical|WP:CSN}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}} |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{/Header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was the '''community sanction noticeboard'''. This forum was previously used for the discussion of ], prior to consensus at ] that another venue would be better. |
|
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at ] (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or ] (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions). |
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> |
|
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== 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 ]. 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 ] in that he misrepresents reliable sources, such as Fangraphs. In addition, he violates other policies and guidelines such as ] and ], 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 . That page discusses some of the issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
The mediator closed the mediation today, writing: <blockquote>"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 ] to request a baseball topic community ban on Tecmo''' or go to Misplaced Pages: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"</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Sockpuppet; Admin Guidance to impose a Lengthy Block if there is other Disruptive Behavior.''' Furthermore, at the admin wrote 2 weeks ago: <blockquote>"It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used ]s disruptively, and any '''further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block'''."</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''3RR violations.''' Tecmo has been blocked 4 times this month for Wiki violations relating to this discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Background.''' Tecmo has deleted 100s of ELs to baseball bios, without consensus, this month. Despite 4 weeks of extensive discussion with a dozen editors prompted by Tecmo's deletions, despite a straw poll, despite an overhwelming consensus disagreeing with his view that the fangraphs EL (for example) should not be deleted, 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'' |
|
|
|
|
|
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: <blockquote>"'''I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules'''."</blockquote> That illustrates his inability to work within the community, and his express problems with ].--] 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* You and baseball bugs are the ones that started this. You won't focus on the content, you keep getting back to this petty ass stupid discussion. You can't have a centralized focused discussion on content. I am in fact SUPPORTING one of the links presented. You just can't seem to get over the fact that you don't like me. Meanwhile, I am working diligently with other editors to improve articles (see ]) and am creating new articles that provide good information to the community. JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER - FANGRAPHS DOESN'T DO THAT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE 5 STATS SITES TO CHOOSE FROM! And thanks for misrepresenting the information. //] 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::*'''WRONG''' Tecmobowl started this feud between him and me by ''refusing to answer fair questions'' that I posed to him. That turns out to have been typical of his attitude toward the wikipedia community in general. ] 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Slight error in my suggestion. I should have said Requests for Arbitration instead of here 2 times. Just letting you know. ]] 21:58, 27 June 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Considering that he is now under his third 3RR block and was a flip ''Eh whatever, I'm pretty much indifferent to the processes of Misplaced Pages...'' I don't see how more attempts at discussion will make any difference at all. He has made it clear in comment and action that what he desires/demands/expects is for everyone else to leave him alone so he can ignore policy and do whatever he pleases. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I would support action taken against ]. From a look at the diffs, block history and some of their civility issues. I agree that they have been ]. They don't seem to have a grasp of ], but if Tecmobowl undertook to enter ] perhaps a sanction other than a straight ban might be considered--] <sup>]</sup> 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::His most recent comment on his own talk page was this: "I'll be back in a week and unless a good discussion has taken place, my behavior will remain the same." His last block was nearly a week long, and it did nothing to change his attitude, and it's obvious this temporary block won't either. ] 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As far as the "adopt a user" idea is concerned, Tecmobowl has been on wikipedia for a year now, so the probability of him submitting to that program "for newbies" is not promising. ] 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''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. In pertinent part, the admin wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>"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"</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
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.--] 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'm not directly involved, but the way I've seen him openly harrass editors of baseball articles, blow off all administrators, and seemingly take ownership of every article he edits is frustrating to even look at. His '''"I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules"''' quote was just the last straw. I've seen him cripple hundreds of articles and destroy many more valid articles. This guy can't get slaps on the wrist anymore. He's a detriment to the entire site. I don't want him, his socks, or any of his future socks ruining articles any more. It's guys like this that remind me that I only need to stay here for my short project, and then never edit here again. It's not worth my time and energy to deal with people like this, especially if they're allowed to continue to harrass and stalk people for such an extended period of time. God knows that if you '''don't''' finally drop the ban hammer, I expect my talk page to be littered with condescending word jumbles and threats in 6 days. Please, just get this over with. ] 13:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:*I would have been inclined to support an indefinite topic ban on all baseball-related articles, but after seeing that quote, it's obvious that this won't end any other way. All we'll get is more disruption, more grief and more sockpuppetry. He needs to be shown the door--now. Ban. ]] 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A more expedient process would be to show a recent declaration by Tecmobowl of the intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages, 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. —''']''' 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's gonna be hard to track down anything ... he's cleared his talk page several times. I would think that given his history of disruption, that should be considered an aggravating factor. ]] 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::His talk page history is intact. Blanking a talk page does not mean complete obfuscation of prior discussion. —''']''' 19:24, 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 (), but these links have turned into his obsession. 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. ] 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Perhaps we can suggest mentoring and a short term (4-6 week) baseball topic ban as an alternative to a long term block? I am definitely not encouraged by his statements that he's going to keep on keeping on, so to speak, but hopefully he would see that his behavior has not been up to snuff. ] 19:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He's been monitoring his talk page. How about posting that idea there, and see if he goes for it? ] 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, it makes sense--can't say we didn't try. I'm personally not too optimistic, though. ]] 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I have made the suggestion. ] 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*:We have already "tried" repeatedly for a month, though I recognize that some here are new to the trying game in this case. Tecmo has been blocked 5 times this month for violating Wiki policy. Each time, only after one or more admins and/or editors "tried" -- by warning him to not engage in disruptive editing. Each time, despite the trying, he was blocked because he ignored Wiki rules. Without contrition. Quite the opposite. He received more advice from admins as to the innappropriateness of his behavior each of the 5 times that he was blocked. They "tried." He has also been advised independently by a series of admins and editors, both on his talk page and on the baseball talk page, to stop disruptive editing. They "tried." A straw poll has been "tried." Conversation has been "tried." Mediation has been "tried." It led to the meditor suggesting that the matter be brought here for Tecmo to be banned, because despite the mediator trying it was clear that he would not change Tecmo's behavior. When Tecmo was found guilty of being a sockpuppet (not the sort of behavior one "mentors" a person out of), the admin wrote: "'''any further ... disruptive behavior .. should result in a lengthy block'''." The admin did not say that it should result in yet another "try." The culmination of all this trying, which if you look at the discussion on the baseball talk page, the mediation cabal page, Tecmo's page, and my talk page, is a dizzying series of conversations (which I could quite properly characterize, in more than one sense, as "trying" conversations), has been Tecmo's above-expressed intention to continue to ignore Wiki rules. Even his expressions over the past month of adherence to any wiki rules have only been to his interpretations of WP:Bold and WP:EL -- which are clearly at odds, from his behavior, with Misplaced Pages. He believes, or at least argues, that these policies in fact allow him to engage in the disruptive editing that he has engaged in. I think we should respect all of the admins and editors who have tried so much this month, devoted their time and effort to resolving this by other means, and finally give us all a break by putting in place an indefinite ban. The time for trying has to end sometime, so that people can be freed up to pursue helpful activities on Misplaced Pages, rather than spend more time on this banned-5-times-this-month sockpuppet who is "fucking done with trying to follow due process." I agree with the sentiments of SashaNein and some others above as, "Please, just get this over with." There has been no rush to justice here. Quite the contrary. We have tried for 4 weeks. Any further trying makes a mockery of the Wiki system. Ater 4 weeks of all the above trying, he has continued his disruptive editing and thumb-nosing. I would submit that the time to act is now. --] 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I initially thought he should be indefblocked right away--do not pass Go, do not collect $200. But now that I think of it more, I look on it as a booby trap--we know he's going to be disruptive, so let the guy hang himself. ]] 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Plus, I think the fact a ] made the proposal should get his attention. :) Though I have a funny feeling Foz better get the banhammer ready ... ]] 22:38, 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. ] 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. ]] 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Comment from Miss Mondegreen==== |
|
|
|
|
|
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''' |
|
|
:Tecmo started by going through tons of baseball articles and doing EL cleaning. Most of it was very good and very straightforward. He was reverted wholesale by Epeefleche, and I am pretty sure that Epeefleche didn't bother to look at the edits before reverting them. He just saw lots of ELs being removed on lots of articles and started reverting. His reverts included putting back in dead links and double links (even the most cursory of checks would have revealed those). Tecmo had already provided an edit summary--and Epeefleche was bahaving as though Tecmo's edits were obvious vandalism. If he didn't see how why they were WP:EL (open wikis, not on topic, not unique), he should have asked. Could Tecmo have behaved better? Gone above and beyond? Provided step by step explanations on talk pages when it was clear that Epeefleche was just going to keep reverting? Sure. But he did what was necessary, and it was Epeefleche, upon reverting who feel short. In return Tecmo did the same, hitting the undo button just as Epeefleche did, acting this time as though Epeefleche's edits were obvious vandalism (though Tecmo could actually attempt to make a case for it, unlike Epeefleche, he should also have made more of an effort here). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Eventually he did. He explained his edits on the WikiProject Baseball page--Epeefleche ignored the explanation. He was focused on one removal. He could have partially reverted. But he didn't. So then I took an edit that Epeefleche was complaining about and explained it, and he still wouldn't stop following Tecmo and reverting him. He wanted Tecmo to stop editing all ELs, even though he wouldn't say why he disagreed with Tecmo, except on one link. He wanted the project to discuss the fangraph issue first, and then the rest of the links--though he wouldn't explain why the project even needed to discuss Tecmo's other edits as they differed on each biography. I tried again, a week latter, and still he refused to discuss the issue--he thought that he had the right to demand another editor not edit because he disagreed with the edits, but that he would explain why at his leisure. Finally, after getting a third opinion, he stopped wholesale reverting Tecmo (at least from the little I saw). |
|
|
|
|
|
{{divbox|navy|]| |
|
|
*'''Other sites''' It does not aid your standing in a discussion to tell people that the pace and scope of the discussion will be dictated by you, and only you. Of course it is preferable to keep the scope as narrow as possible, but when asked numerous times to expand the discussion, there is no good reason not to do that. Please, ]. User:Epeefleche could have prevented twenty kilobytes of wasted discussion by writing "I agree with deleting those five links, please get to the disputed four now." Stubbornness to this level is annoying, and as the frequent use of caps lock below shows, enraging too. |
|
|
*'''Specific links''' Just below the section header "EL example", User:Miss Mondegreen lists a multitude of external links together with some interpretations of ]. I think that editor is correct in the reasoning accompanying those external links. |
|
|
--] (] ]) 22:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Conflict with Irishguy''' |
|
|
:That was one of the bigger issues, but even with small things, editors have no patience with Tecmobowl. On the ] article, Tecmo reverted Irishguy at 19:17 with an edit summary that said "see talk page". Irishguy didn't wait for Tecmo's comment and at 19:20 commented on Tecmo's talk page to let him know there was no comment on the talk page and then reverted him at the article at 19:21. Tecmo's talk page comment clocks in at 19:23, he blanked his talk page at 19:24: "''how many idiots are there in one day''". Irishguy thinks this is another example of Tecmo's bad behavior: |
|
|
:<blockquote>''"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."''</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Tecmobowl commented one Irishguy's talk page at 19:32: |
|
|
<blockquote>"''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.''"</blockquote |
|
|
|
|
|
:What was the point of this little instigation? I don't know. Everyone is always talking about Tecmo's bad behavior, so that's the person to pick a fight with because it takes him longer than three minutes to leave a comment? Everyone should know better. An admin especially. And calling Tecmo out for blanking his talk page before replying to Irishguy. What's the point? |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are so many things wrong with this situation that I don't know where to begin. Tecmo is a problematic editor. I don't think that he's as problematic as everyone else, but if he is, why is an admin starting a fire and then dousing it with gasoline? Why is Tecmo the one who has to remind the admin that they should be talking about this on the talk page on the article, not user ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
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 Misplaced Pages. 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. <span style="font-size: 90%;">'''] '']''''' 23:48, June 30 2007 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your summation is slightly incorrect. A second checkuser showed that ] ''was'' in fact Tecmobowl avoided a block and continuing disruptive behavior. You know this because you were so I'm not clear on why you are claiming he didn't use socks. As for the other issue, Tecmobowl deleted an entire trivia section on ] even though the tag asked that pertinent information be added back into the article. When I added back some information, he continuously deleted it. He finally deleted it saying "rv see talk page" even though there was nothing at all on the talk page. When I contacted him on his talk page, he simply with the edit summary "how many idiots are there in one day?" As he had already blanked his talk page numerous times that day I assume I am just one of many "idiots" who have the gall to disagree with his actions. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You raise many good points, but it's misleading to say the checkuser was negative. It was revisited and it confirmed that El redactor was Tecmobowl's sockpuppet. That came as no surprise to at least three admins who are well versed in sockpuppet behavior and saw the similarities. The problem with a website like this is that it's one-dimensional. All we know about anyone is how they operate here. Tecmobowl could be a sweet guy in real life. But this, here, is all we have to go on. It occurs to me that, technically, he may be right in a number of his citations of wikipedia guidelines, in addition to flagrantly violating other wikipedia rules. There is more to wikipedia than content. There is also the issue of getting along. And since it's assumed that wikipedia editors are adults, or at least reasonably mature, the question arises as to how much "coddling" we can do for an editor. Well, maybe a good deal of it, if necessary. But the editor has to show a willingness to cooperate with everyone, not just the ones who agree with him. OK, I told Irishguy I wouldn't comment on this anymore. But the thing is, I ''want'' to work with Tecmobowl; I wanted to work with him from day one, ''but he wouldn't let me''. He dismissed my questions with comments like "la dee da". Sorry, but when you cop that kind of attitude, you're not going to make friends. There is no inherent right to work in wikipedia, and he gives no indication that he plans to change anything. That's why I have to support an administrative sanction. ] 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree with ] (above). I was involved in only one article, with only one EL. By the time I got there, virtually everyone was behaving badly and nobody was listening to anyone. The EL that I saw seemed to contain some very good information which I believe added value to the article in a way that could not otherwise be included directly without taking up too much space. ] behaved badly at the end, but it was not without provocation and I think he should be given the opportunity to participate in the community in a cooperative way. Whether he chooses to agree to that, and subsequently honor his agreement, should be up to him. Though I fear that the damage may already be done on all sides. Now that the community is well aware of the situation, I wish ] could step back let the neutral community evaluate and deal with it. BBB, I sympathize, truly. But please stop pushing so hard. Once it becomes this 'personal', its time to step back. <small>Peace.</small>] ] 00:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**All I ever wanted was for him to ''talk to me'' instead of slamming the door in my face and stonewalling. ] 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Tecmobowl has been incredibly incivil and tendentious but notwithstanding this behaviour I think this case may need to go to arbitration. Considering Miss Mondegreen's points and FunPika's clarified suggestion (that parties should come here for a topic ban or go to Arbcom for "a more binding solution") it may be more appropriate for ] to handle this. Otherwise, I'm still of the opinion that mentorship and perhaps a topic ban is an appropriate sanction--] <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with ], even while the page is protected, to claim that ] is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks. '''<font face="georgia">]</font>''' 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This user was originally an AOL IP vandal. Back in November or October of last year is when I first remember encountering them. The Lulu3 account is far from their first actual account, but it's been a handy central focus for tracking this vandal. They eventually moved off of AOL IPs, and were then able to be blocked more effectively, though they still IP shift fairly often. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The key thing that this vandal does is repeatedly performing a major rewrite of the ] article to claim that Lucy is still alive. But other regular patterns from this vandal include mass blankings of the user and talk page of those opposing him, repeated claims, once confronted, that the Lucy edits were mistakes or accidents, and various general claims of innocence to appeal to the next admin they incounter's lack of knowledge of the situation. By IP and account hopping they have been able to keeep it going where people unfamiliar with their past actions will cut them slack as a brand new user. And then once more they "accidentally" edit the Lucy page to claim that she is still alive. At one point I even had a fairly extensive ] with the vandal, in which he agreed to stop vandalizing, create a new account, and just edit without vandalism. It was not long before the promise was broken, and the Lucy vandalism resumed. |
|
|
|
|
|
: One thing though. I have to wonder exactly what good a community ban would be on the situation. At this point, as soon as the vandal makes his signature edit, he/she is being blocked. A ban would not make this happen any faster. A ban will almost certainly not persuade the vandal to stop. If the vandal did somehow decide to stop, create an account, and edit correctly, I would be fine with that outcome. I just want the vandalism to stop. - ] 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm curious about something here. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x mainspace edits from editing? It seems that something along this line would protect 'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). <small>Peace.</small>] ] 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::(and yes, I know this should be on the page protection discussion, which I'll do also) <small>Peace.</small>] ] 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This kind of problem has been discussed before, and your points are on the mark. Users can set up "sleeper" accounts to get around semi-protected pages, either by simply waiting or by performing innocuous edits until the "new user" time period elapses, and then jump into their previous pattern. The question of counting edits has been raised but not pursued, for the very reason you suggest, that the vandal can simply make enough edits to get past the count. Full protection of the page will stop all of that, but permanent full protection is against wikipedia policy, a policy loophole that vandals try to exploit. Never underestimate the patience of some vandals. We've been dealing with the ] sockpuppet army for 6 months now, with semi-protection of various pages at various times, and as soon as they go off protection he's back at it again, like a perverse hobby of some kind. ] 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That type of vandal will also sometimes latch onto a particular article or subject for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble. For example, many of the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppets may in fact be copycats that are just enjoying the "game". There was an editor on the ] page about a year ago that kept posting unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory stuff until he finally was either dispatched or got tired of the game after many, many weeks at it. That is, it's not really about ], it's about the chuckle they get from the interaction with frustrated editors. ] 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In any case, there is no reason to "formalize" the community ban - until this person stops abusing the system they won't be welcome to edit. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, in fact, I think this user is "old school banned," which is indef. blocked when reverting to the evidence that Lucy is alive part. This proposal will only formalize the situation. By the way, the user has made an additional sock, ]. As a result, I don't think this user is cooperating to edit constructively on the encyclopedia. With the last two socks, I have noticed that <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> was never used by the puppeteer. '''<font face="georgia">]</font>''' 19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] decided == |
|
|
|
|
|
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,<br> |
|
|
- ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed, see discussion on ]. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at Administrators' noticeboard (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions).
