Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 6 July 2007

Protest

I urge you protest this block. You have my support. Thanks. Sarah Goldberg 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, i didn't know anyone was out there.  :-) Thanks much for your support, but I'm just not inclined to join the adopt program and that seems to be the only way for me to get "unbanned". If you have another suggestion, I'd be willing to listen. Tecmobowl 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can take some time off and (if your IP changes periodically), you can attempt to come back under a different name. Your edits (like to here) are greatly appreciated and some other prolific editors here did not have the idea to create an article on such an old yet controversial and historical occurrence. I honestly think that (and let aside the "uncivil", "sock" and "cannot communicate" allegations) that you are someone who helps this place out greatly. Your right, who needs duplicate links. You only need one, maybe two links to player bios and stats, not 5! You really have made this place better content-wise, and come back when your ready. I'll be glad to work with you! Sarah Goldberg 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well that is much appreciated. I am open to talking, and have communicated time and time again. The sock allegation is what it is. I was blocked during the process and unable to defend myself. I did violate the 3RR, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes not. I use a program to send me a notification of when this page is updated, so i can still check in here if you have any questions or what not. I think my favorite creation so far has been Chief Yellow Horse. Tecmobowl 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, unless it's troublesome, I don't see the problem with 3RR. I mean, if there is a war, that's one thing, but if someone changes an article to a previous revision because the newer version is worse off, then, by all means, DO IT! BE BOLD!. I praise you for removing the duplicate links. They weren't needed. Now, the only thing I do ask is; does your IP address change? That's a key thing. If it changes, hopefully soon, then you can really try to re-apply (as far as I know). Your contributions are valuable and all the uncivil things can be changed and made better. It doesn't hurt you if you change, whereas if someone was once a vandal changes they still have vandalism in their history. A few editors I know have once or twice used an article like the sandbox and are very key to the development of this place. Anyway, back on point, hopefully you can re-apply under a new name under a new IP. As for Chief Yellow Horse, that's great work. That is exactly why we need you. Because you make this place that much better. Thanks for all previous contributions and hope for more in the future. Sarah Goldberg 19:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lol, I from the beginning told people that i am bold. When people want to have good content related discussions, I try and get involved. You can see one of the more pressing problems with Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson, where I added a link for a fansite whose owner lives in my building. Others have said I am that person, and that's where the whole sock thing broke out. Be well. Tecmobowl 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you've a supporter piping in, encouraging you to violate the wikipedia rules. Good idea. Baseball Bugs 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, he hasn't done anything to be banned this harsh. You guys overdid it. Irishguy should be removed as an sysop, and you need to keep your work up on articles like Wrigley Field. We don't need a controversy here when I'm just supporting him and hoping he will return here. Sarah Goldberg 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have said many times that Tecmobowl had something to offer. He just has to decide whether he's willing to work with people who don't necessarily feel like treating him with kid gloves. So far, his answer to that has been "NO". Baseball Bugs 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He probably is. He has probably, though, been in the minority when it comes to opinions (what do do in the articles), and that may not help his contributing. I think that if he is in the majority for something, he will contribute greatly and get along greatly. He has a bum rap, he needs to be allowed back for one last chance. Sarah Goldberg 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to read through his talk-page history and see how as far back as October he was trying to force his interpretation of trivia and links on articles, in defiance of guidelines, and before any of us here had ever heard of him, and when admins were already telling him to stop it. Tecmo has shown no interest whatsoever in obeying wikipedia rules except when it suits him. That's why he sits where he does now. Meanwhile, I will edit whatever articles I choose to. I stopped watching the Babe Ruth article because of Tecmo, and thanks to that, some yahoo 5 days ago reverted it back to approximately a year-old version, and it was 5 days before anyone caught it. No, I will no longer let you or Tecmo or anyone else try to dictate what articles I can edit or not. Baseball Bugs 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I should be removed as a sysop for blocking someone for violating policy? Tecmobowl already tried that and all it got him was another checkuser which further proved he had used socks to avoid blocks. And this is the suggestion of someone who leaves edit summaries of FUCK YOU!!!. I note looking through your edit contributions that you have no personal problem with reverting 3 or more times....you have violated that guideline before to push a certain photo you try to add to numerous articles. Actually, a great deal of your editing style is similar to Tecmos: you have your opinions on editing and you just plain don't care about consensus. Getting a new identity would be using a sock to avoid his block...that is very bad advice to give to someone. He didn't get a "bum rap". There was a discussion that lasted for days here. IrishGuy 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dicating you Baseball Bugs, and you can edit whatever. I'm just supporting Tecmo. I'll read up, but I'm decided on whether to support or hate him. Sarah Goldberg 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't hate him. I don't even know him. We might go to a Braves game together and have a great time chatting about the history of baseball. But all we know is what we have here. Baseball Bugs 20:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you guys kidding me - IrishGuy - Get over it...move on .... you won. Baseball Bugs - Go look at your archived talk page and tell me where I refused to talk and where I was rude? You won't move the hell on. JUST DROP IT. Tecmobowl 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• And IrishGuy - Your actions should be reviewed because we were involved in the dispute. You as an admin had no right to use your administrative powers to ban me. That's the issue I have. Why I'm coming back to discuss this with you guys is beyond me. I'm really out of here unless someone has something that involves my input. Tecmobowl 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where you were rude? Are you kidding me? Three little words: "la dee da". Baseball Bugs 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I stirred the pot, but, to keep this private, I can give you my e-mail address, without letting anybody else know. You deserve better, and I will back you up all the way! Sarah Goldberg 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl, while I realize that you probably won't listen to me at all, look through Sarah's history. Creating someone's user page with "homo", using the term "faggots" in refering to gays, and edit summaries like "FUCK YOU!!!...this is really not someone you want going to bat for you. IrishGuy 00:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Irishdude, I'm fine. That guy was a vandal, he doesn't deserve to get the simple warning. When I meet someone who is getting treated badly, I'll bat for them. And I do respect sysop's, but you have overdone it. You prevent people from being bold, and isn't this a place where being bold is a good thing? I understand consensus, but you treat being bold like a sin. And if you keep this up, I'll advocate for you to lose your sysop rights. Just be more lenient, and I'm being more civil now. Otherwise I would blast poor Tecmobowl, instead I'm trying to get him back up here to keep giving us great contributions, not vandalism. And, btw, duplicate links ARE NOT NEEDED! Sarah Goldberg 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are template warnings for vandals. You need not resort to that kind of language. If you want to advocate for me to be desysopped, you had better come up with some very good reasons for your edit history and rampant incivility because I guarantee it will come up. Being bold is not carte blanche to ingnore consensus and simply push your own POV...which is what a great deal of your edits have been. Tecmo's edit history is very different than yours and it won't help him to be lumped in with your incivility. As I noted before, I didn't indef block Tecmo, another admin did. All of this was after the checkusers, SSP report, and discussion on the community noticeboard. Blaming me for something I had nothing to do with just illustrates how much of this situation you don't understand. IrishGuy 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you did not assume good faith and assumed that he had used sock puppets. Any proof upon that? You did not assume good faith and duplicate links are useless. Use only MLB.com, or ESPN.com, or baseball-reference.com. But we don't need all of them.

And Tecmobowl still deserves to be back here. Tecmobowl is a great contributor, even if he's not the most cooperative. Sarah Goldberg 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proof? How about the checkuser and the sock report. I had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about external links. That was between Tecmo and other users. If you haven't even bothered to look into the history of this, why are you commenting? IrishGuy 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• The check user came back not likely. Someone else has chimmed in after it was closed, and while I asked them to substantiate their claims, they said they couldn't. I was prevented from defending myself while the discussion took place because of YOUR actions. Get over it... move on. You win. The system backed you. What else do you need and what benefit do you see in continuing these discussions? I'm trying to get out of here and I can't even do that because of you. You people say I'm uncooperative...i'm not ... i just don't agree with you. Tecmobowl 02:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're lying, it came back LIKELY. And you also twist the truth when you say they "couldn't" substantiate their claims. They wouldn't, because that would give you and/or other sockpuppets more information to try to evade blocking. And you also lie when you say that everything was fine until June. You were being told by admins as far back as October that you were in the wrong with your editing approach. YOU DID THIS TO YOURSELF. Baseball Bugs 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Read what people write. Other than that, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. Tecmobowl 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

La dee da. Baseball Bugs 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in

I have not followed the drama here much but would like to weigh in that it's a shame this situation got so ugly. From a quick scan it looks like some patience and measured responses from both sides would have gone a long way towards keeping a good article writer from being banned. Misplaced Pages is definitely the loser here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Sarah Goldberg 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• The whole thing is a total joke. Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs, and Irishguy all have screwed up. After trying time and time again to reason with these people and discuss things appropriately, and after trying to invoke outside help through MedCabs, RFAs, etc...etc... I just gave up. They are going to harp on the same thing: I'm a sock, I violated 3RR, I spammed my own site, and I was uncivil. With the exception of 3RR, the rest is a joke. I only became uncivil after they were uncivil AND nobody would help the situation. It's a damn shame. I'm not coming back as an editor anytime soon, if ever, even if i'm unbanned. The only reason I'm chimming in here is out of respect for people like you who have commented. Even my previous discussions with you were were quite pleasant. Tecmobowl 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo, I didn't give you an indef block nor did I ever push for one. In the community discussion I merely noted that you probably weren't going to agree to adoption and discussion...and you didn't. IrishGuy 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I am happy to agree to DISCUSSION. I am not going to be adopted when I'm not the problem. You were the one that couldn't discuss the content. I started this discussion. I told you in an edit summary i was moving the topic to the talk page and you couldn't wait. You kept editing, I simply responded.YOU WERE IN A DISPUTE WITH ME - YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE ANY ADMINISTRATOR ACTIONS AGAINST ME - NONE - ZIP - ZERO!! GO READ THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES IN PLACE. You failed. Go look at baseball bugs talk page... go look at Epeefleche's talk page. Look at how long it took before I got obnoxious. You should be ashamed of yourself. I blank my talk page, it's perfectly acceptable. You reverted my talk page and I opted for a poor use of words. It wasn't directed at you personally, it was more a frustration. That being said, I apologized IMMEDIATELY when I knew there was a problem. Did I make excuses even though I could have - NO. Stop talking here.... you are not going to change my mind. Go fix all the crappy content that this place is inundated with. Why am i wasting my energy here? Good freakin question. Tecmobowl 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block you for a 3RR. I extended an existing block because you used a sockpuppet to avoid your block. I had no conflict in doing that. None at all. Were I to have blocked you for 3RR, you would have a valid complaint. That's not what happened. Outside of that issue, I haven't gone near you. I stayed out of the external link discussion, I didn't revert any of your edits as others did, etc. I only got dragged back into your sphere when you attempted an arbcom against me which was promptly thrown out and led to another checkuser on you. You continue to drag me into things, I haven't engaged you. I'm not sure why you can't see that. IrishGuy 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are a joke of an admin. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DID - IT'S THE FACT THAT YOU DID ANYTHING. YOU VIOLATED WIKI. Did i just personally attack you? Probably. Did you deserve it - absolutely. Your actions are the most offensive. Why? Because you're an admin. The fact that I gave up on the RFC was because you quickly diverted focus and a bunch of others jumped in. People on here have a huge problem with properly separating issues. How exactly did I drag you into this one? I'm blocked, I can't edit any other page. You wouldn't have seen this if you didn't mark this page for watching and/or didn't actually read what was written. You have successfully contributed to my situation. It is clear that your actions will not be reviewed. Nothing I can do about it anymore. Now please, for the love of all that is rationale - STOP BITCHING. GO WORK ON CONTENT!!!!!! Tecmobowl 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You violated a variety of wikipedia rules, so you are in no position to be lecturing anyone else about the rules. Also, in case you hadn't figured it out by reading that user's history, the user calling itself Sarah Goldberg is obviously just trying to rile things up here. And it's working, but nothing will come of it except further ill will. Baseball Bugs 03:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I WAS NOT TRYING TO RILE THINGS UP! I WAS TRYING TO HAVE A NICE CONVERSATION WHO WAS TREATED LIKE SHIT! THIS IS A GREAT EDITOR AND YOU, BY BANNING HIM, HAVE SCREWED HIM AND SCREWED WIKIPEDIA! AND I'LL BET YOU'VE DONE IT BEFORE IRISHDUDE. YOU NEED TO BE WARNED ABOUT YOUR STATUS AS AN SYSOP, YOU COULD BE REMOVED IF WE GET TOGETHER! Sarah Goldberg 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Several admins have been involved in this case, and they all reached the same conclusion. Tecmobowl got what he gave. Baseball Bugs 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He deserved a 1-week block, not an indefinite ban. You overdid it Sarah Goldberg 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)