Revision as of 22:09, 20 November 2007 editEddieSegoure (talk | contribs)20 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:21, 20 November 2007 edit undoEddieSegoure (talk | contribs)20 editsm rm boxNext edit → | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
*] | *] | ||
*] | *] | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baseball/Templates/User}} |
Revision as of 22:21, 20 November 2007
This is a Wikipedia user page.
This isn't an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voltron. |
An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a be an alternate account of EddieSegoura. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks. |
This username indeed belongs to EddieSegoura. Voltron's block was discussed on WP:ANI and is archived below for reference.
Voltron's block
Based on behavioral evidence collected by myself and Sarah, as well as checkuser evidence brought to me by Dmcdevit, I have concluded that Voltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · block log) and have blocked the Voltron and VoltronForce (talk · contribs) accounts indefinitely from editing. Because Eddie has not used the Voltron account abusively, but constructively, I have brought this matter up here.óRyulÛng (??) 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I have also gone through most of the pages solely created or edited by this account and applied CSD G5.óRyulÛng (??) 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the account is making constructive edits, it should be allowed to edit. Common sense dictates that. Since we know that this dude has a history, the moment Eddie lapses and starts making destructive edits, we can go ahead and ban him quickly. MessedRocker (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. I gave this fellow a barnstar in good faith, but I won't unblock him because banned users aren't allowed to edit. If he wants to return, he has to do so through official channels. - Jehochman 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Banned users are simply not allowed to edit. -- FayssalF - 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec*2) If there was an official community ban somewhere (I'm not familiar with the history), then there needs to be an official community unban too. Until then, out. óWknight94 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've denied the unblock request. He was disrupting the above thread about Sadi Carnot. - Jehochman 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I stated policy. Whether EddieSegoura is banned or not, i don't know. To unban a banned user is to follow formal channels and consult the authority who took the decision of the ban. AFAIK, banned users cannot get back whenever they want to. -- FayssalF - 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec*2) If there was an official community ban somewhere (I'm not familiar with the history), then there needs to be an official community unban too. Until then, out. óWknight94 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ryulong asked me to review this account and I am as certain as I possibly can be that this is Eddie. He told me some weeks ago in some emails that he was still editing (he also contacted me a couple of weeks ago to protest that User:Malmindser who requested an appeal of Eddie's ban on CSN was an impersonator and had nothing at all to do with him). Generally, if a banned person is able to return, reform and edit productively without notice, I have no inclination to hunt them down. However, I disagree with Messed Rocker's comment and I don't think we should turn a blind eye towards editors who have been banned by an overwhelming community consensus when we become aware of them editing under a specific account. If Ed wants to return legitimately then he needs to follow WP:BAN, as he knows full well, otherwise he risks his accounts being blocked when they are identified. Also, I don't like the idea of block evading banned vandals giving others advice about their blocks, objecting to multiple community sanction proposals, butting into unblock requests, objecting to sockblocks, and involving themselves in blocking policy and checkuser discussions and so on. That this account was being obviously and openly geared towards adminship also concerns me and I'm very glad that Ryu picked up on it now. Anyway, I endorse the block and agree with Ryu's statement. And yes, Eddie is most definitely banned as the cross-project "Exicornt vandal". The disruption he caused was unbelievable, particularly here and on Wiktionary and his vicious harassment of User:BunchofGrapes was really disturbing. ban listed here Sarah 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, Voltron/Eddie has just emailed me and confessed. He asks me to send his apologies to the community. He says he meant no harm and was trying to be a constructive editor this time. He says, "I truly regret my past" and that he was thinking about appealing legitimately for a second chance when the impersonator account User:Malmindser posted to CSN, but he insists that account has nothing to do with him. Eddie, thank you for being honest. Sarah 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- As a neutral 3rd party, it seems to me that a truly reformed vandal is something that anti-vandal partollers such as me live to see happen. The Voltron user's edits have been strongly supporting the overall project, and with no mention of his "past life" or behavior. I would support a lifting of the blocks on this user, with the understanding that a certain amount of extra scrutiny will be given to his behavior in the near term. Arakunem 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Voltron's participating in the Sadi Carnot community ban discussion above. Disruptive or helpful? You decide. This fellow hasn't been quietly minding the articles. He's interjected in administrative discussions and policy matters. Disruption can be subtle too. - Jehochman 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- All I see above is him saying that we should leave a user banned for a few weeks for cool-off, then re-evaluate. Doesn't seem disruptive to me, but as I said above, I'm going solely on prima-facie without any history behind the user and his history. Arakunem 01:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Voltron's participating in the Sadi Carnot community ban discussion above. Disruptive or helpful? You decide. This fellow hasn't been quietly minding the articles. He's interjected in administrative discussions and policy matters. Disruption can be subtle too. - Jehochman 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- For better or worse, there's ample precedent for blocking "reincarnations" of banned users, even ones that were extremely helpful and productive (such as User:Gzornenplatz). -Hit bull, win steak 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Original Userpage
As you've expected, I enjoy things related to Voltron. I've worked on adding final results and am in the process of adding the 2008 schedules as they are released by the teams.
VoLÜro/\/Force 03:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The one's I've posted:
- 2008 Philadelphia Philles schedule
- 2008 Los Angeles Dodgers schedule (now here)
- 2008 San Francisco Giants schedule (mostly home)
- 2008 Arizona Diamondbacks schedule (mostly home)
- 2008 Seattle Mariners schedule
- 2008 Milwaukee Brewers schedule
- 2008 Atlanta Braves schedule
- 2008 Chicago Cubs schedule
- 2008 New York Yankees schedule (mostly road)
Other articles I've created:
Categories: