User talk:Tecmobowl

WP:EL, all that stuff, etc.

Discussion

Hey, I'm beginning to think that it's time to take this case to the Arbitration Committee, I don't know what else we can do. What I'd like you to do though, is send me some links as to where the steps in dispute resolution are so that I can set up the case. I'll ask a couple others to do the same. Try and make what you send me neutral though, you can post your defense when I post the case. I'm just asking since I haven't followed the case that closely and there's probably far more areas where resolutions have been tried that I've missed. Wizardman 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC) This whole thing is pretty much just screwed to high hell. I'm a pretty bold person and I have started to respond viciously to those that have attacked me in the past. The main problems are: 1) personality clashes between myself and three other users. All of them have sufficiently pissed me off to a point that i am less inclined to give them leeway on related issues. 2) The inclusion of a link to a site that most people seem to think has pretty good content, but there is some question regarding my motives to initially include it. From that, a SOCK case errupted and i was "found guilty" based on "evidence" provided by the aforementioned users. I use the quotes because I maintain my innocence. 3) The interpretation of WP:EL page as it applies to use on articles related to baseball players. Articles like Brad Ausmus are central to this argument. The discussion has taken on mammoth proportions, has extended to numerous talk pages, a mediation cabal, refractoring, comment interruption, and a whole mess of things. There is one other user involved who seems to agree with me on some issues and with other people on other issues. I am amazed that the person has remained cool. I have, at least in a digital sense, lost respect for most people on here and for the "systems" in place. My focus (for the most part) is on content. I have taken up some behavior related issues with the 3 people I have had the most contentious run ins. Basically - if you can't tell by this post - it's a big freakin mess. As a result, I have resorted to focusing on WP:EL, WP:IAR; and WP:CITE for a good number of my edits. Meanwhile, along with the help of a user who does not have a log in, the two of us have made some great progress with Cy Young. I'm burned out on talking about people's behavior, I just want to be left alone on a personal level and focus these discussions on content. I'm watching this page so we can continue this discussion. As you can see, more admins jump in with blocks! Joy... I'll be back in a week and unless a good discussion has taken place, my behavior will remain the same. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Wizardman -- Query whether there is a need to pursue this at Arbitration at this point, as Tecmo is being considered for indefinite ban at [1], which would resolve the issue.--Epeefleche 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Discussion

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. Please see the following guidance from WP:3RR which I have used when coming to this decision. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." 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 (UTC) Eh whatever, I'm pretty much indifferent to the processes of Wikipedia as these people are attacking me from all angles. It's unfortunate that admins do not actually take time to look at what's going on. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Sanctions -- Indefinite Block

Discussion

FYI -- As suggested by the mediator at [2], I have filed at [3], the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, under User:Tecmobowl, a request for an indefinite block of you. --Epeefleche 04:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC) That's great, so you and baseball bugs and Irishguy can slam me all you want while I'm blocked. Good deal. That's great... hey by the way...when you are done trashing me ... why don't you go and actually IMPROVE the content here. As shocking as that may sound...that's the best thing you can do. //Tecmobowl 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC) It's not just about content. It's also about cooperation and dialogue. You have shown virtually no willingness to cooperate, and that's the reason you find yourself in this situation. You have no one to blame but yourself. Baseball Bugs 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Discussion

I have made a suggestion at WP:CSN above that you voluntarily agree to join Adopt a user and serve a 4-6 week ban not on general editing, but articles on baseball and baseball players. I strongly urge you to accept this, because that might be the best you can hope for out of this situation. Your past record of WP:DE and failing to work constructively works against you here. SirFozzie 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC) RESPONSE TO SirFozzie - Given the current state of the situation - I will refractor ANYONE else who comments here' I appreciate your opinion. However, I am not really inclined to join any "adopt" program. My edits are based on guidelines and policies in place, and each of my actions is fairly well supported. My comments are based on the way these people treated me. Generally speaking, I don't care who did what to who, all i care about is that people with power use it appropriately and that editors create good content. Epeefleche, Irishguy (admin), and especially Baseball Bugs have been very problematic. Neier (admin) personally attacked me - even though we did not have any real interaction - and did not appologize. Vidor has his own set of problems. Several others have bitten me right out of the gate. I don't take kindly to that and I bite back when requests like this go relatively unanswered (although the one person who did look into it did in fact ask Baseball Bugs to leave me alone - and he didn't). Alansohn, who has expressed his problems with my edits, has a RFC/UC going on [here. Starting to see how the situation might not be as it is being presented? I even tried to bring order to a number of these situations with active discussion and polite conversation. Did I violate the 3RR a few times, sure (note - I haven't violated it since, I was suspended based on an interpretation that i don't agree with). But, I believe I did so in good faith in an attempt to bring order to this ridiculously stupid situation. This shows how another user, who i would venture to guess is a sock puppet of baseball bugs, was here to do nothing but vandalize wiki. Look at those edit summaries and look at the one comment i made to him. Awefully polite don't you think? Odd that the admin who blocked him just happened to be Irishguy, and he didn't seem to care to much that a vast number of his edit summaries were nothing but personal attacks. Look at the discussion on the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. I opened the first attempt to talk here NOBODY responded. Shortly after, this discussion started. LOOK at how long I shut my mouth in an attempt to get others to see what happened. I stopped putting the link back in and I gave Baseball Bugs the opportunity to respond. Miss Mondegreen couldn't even do that. I have tried numerous times to seek outside assistance with this matter, and I have not been helped. Note: I don't mean that I received help and nobody agreed with me (although that did happen in one case), I mean that by in large, no productive help came! That group wants to make me out to be a vandal, despite the fact that my edits are based on widespread consensus and documented guidelines already in place here at wikipedia. They refuse to enter into content based discussions without getting into "you said this" or "he did that". I am not the problem here. Irishguy abused his rights as an admin. We were in a dispute (whether he wants to admit it or not), and his decision to extend a "temporary block" on me was both irresponsible and against the Baseball bugs has stalked me. Epeefleche has refractored discussions and spread them out over several different articles. If you go look at the topic he started here, do you see something unusual about it? It is basically about my behavior, NOT ABOUT THE CONTENT. How confusing and disjointed is that discussion? Does it really flow? It has been refractored, and adjusted, and screwed with so many times? Can you make sense of that? I sure cant. Look at these people's attitudes during these discussions? Did Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs really make an effort to have a focused discussion? I tried to bring focus when I opened this discussion. Epeefleche responded first and didn't do a darn thing to help. He even tried to refractor the conversation into the one he started (see phrevious paragraph). Finally, I OPENED this MC in order to bring the situation to a peaceful resolution. It was disastrous. Here is how it looked after I had opened it. See any major difference? A mess broke out, more people got involved and the person who tried to "help" the situation did a horrible job. Holdercra1 jumped in with this straw poll. It was not presented properly. Look at how I explained the situation in the MC request. Does that poll look like a well constructed poll? It wasn't. I even stayed out of it and THEY STILL COULDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. Please read WP:STRAW. I ask you to look at what it says about consensus and how the information should be presented. Here are some snipets to look at. I have copied them from the current version but made bold certain points for effect. For that reason, article straw polls are never binding Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was unfair, the poll and its results should simply be ignored. Again, I am reading what is already in place and acting upon it. For the most part, I am polite. But when nobody brings sanity to the situation, when a bunch of people who can't behave civily rag on me for over a week - I stop trying to "work it out with them". And go back to GUIDELINES that are allready in place. I am very quick to tell people that I adhere to WP:BOLD. And I must not that WP:IAR, which I have stated, IS A POLICY. Look Chief Yellow Horse. An article i created during this process. Look at the discussion page. Do you see an unwillingness to talk or discuss? Was I uncivil? Did I shove my views on someone else? NO!!! I worked with someone who was civil toward me and made some improvements to the article. Go look at the Cy Young article. This comparison should show you how much better off the article is then when I first got invovled. The discussion page will show you my frustration and my ability to productivly work through it. This of course, until one of these people harassing me chimmed in AGAIN! Brad Ausmus article is disgusting. The ELs section is horrendus. Look at the history - even if you disagree with me removing the fangraphs site, there were DUPLICATE LINKS, DEAD LINKS, AND LINKS THAT REQUIRED REGISTRATION. If anyone takes some time to really look at the situation, it is quite possible that you will see what is going on is disgusting and most of it is not my fault. Have i screwed up, hell yeah. Am I the real problem here... HELL NO! Be well. My hat's off to you if you actually read all this :-) //Tecmobowl 03:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC) As an added note, I do recall a suggestion that the entire project is adopted. I think that is a VERY good idea!!!!! //Tecmobowl 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts

Discussion

I read it. And I see (above) that you indicated that you will refactor (redact?) anyone who posts here, and I accept, without prejudice, your right to remove my post. Though, I hope you take time to read it as I read yours. Tecmobowl, I posted an opinion against a permanent community ban, and in favor of giving you the option/choice to return and edit as a cooperative part of the community. I think you were treated poorly and I think that you responded poorly. I believe you got caught up in some misunderstandings, and almost everyone decided to escalate the situation, instead of standing down. I ask you to reflect on the situation, not to look at "how you were wrong", because there is more than enough blame to be shared on all sides. I'm asking you to reflect, from a perspective of personal responsibility, and ask yourself whether you could have done anything differently to help create a different (better) outcome. At the end of the day the community cannot allow disruption. I'm not saying you were disruptive, and I'm not saying you weren't. I'm saying, only, that the community cannot allow disruption. In this case, your removal was the solution to stop the perceived disruption. In a re-enactment, it might have be Irishguy or Baseball bugs. So, the only real question now is, do you want to continue editing here? Or, do you need to be right? Because, the best way that I can see for you to clear your name, is to swallow your pride (as distasteful as that is, and believe me I understand the distaste of that), agree to be civil (which does not even have to mean you are accepting you were ever uncivil), and perhaps even enter the mentor program (so what?) Lots of editors are 'adopted'. In reality, it would actually mean that you would have an advocate to help represent you here. So before you rule that out, because it feels like a punishment, consider the benefits of having a devoted and dedicated personal advocate in your corner. Suffice to say that my editing here has not been in 100% calm harmony and that I'm all too familiar with contentious editors and contentious situations. It generally takes two to compromise, and it takes two to fight. Generally, if one party remains calm in the face of the storm they will prevail in the long run. And that can require a very very thick skin and the ability to know when to step back because it's gotten too personal diff. At the end of the day, the outcome to all of this is really your choice. The community overall has a very forgiving nature, even if individual editors don't. (I am not refering to anyone here). I'd encourage you to disassociate the 'offer' of 'mentorship' from the concept of 'punnishment', and then consider it. Something about this situation saddens me in a way that words cannot explain. Best and most sincere regards. Peace.Lsi john 13:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. That note is really targeted at users who have an inability to discuss things with me. I would not "remove" parts of conversations. I will blank entire conversations, but not parts of them (as that is against the rules and the goals of wikipedia. I was simply saying that disruptions to that conversation would be moved to other portions of the page while this goes on. I have always been and willing to cooperate with the community. If you look at Talk pages like Cy Young, Black Sox Scandal, and Shoeless Joe Jackson, and all the other ones, you will see that I was always there to discuss. At times, I drifted toward personal comments. Whether right or wrong, that is what happened. I have been told that i ignore WP:OWN. But numerous times, I even asked others to contribute to articles I created so that a fresh opinion was offered. I'm not going to dredge up the past anymore in this comment except to say that I use wiki guidelines and policies evaluating content that exists here. I will respond politely and cordially to people who are rude to me for a while, but when nobody from the outside will help, I go back to a policy that is very clear: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." IK'm here to talk, and here to chat and get the content better. That's it. Be well. //Tecmobowl 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Decision at WP:CSN

[4] 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.

It is unbelievable how irresponsible others have behaved in this action. The decision to ban me is what it is. I don't care. Wikipedia is a relatively unimportant place. I attempted to discuss things politely and even responded in depth to sir fozzie above. But i digress, I'm glad that Epeefleche's spammed site will now be allowed, I am glad that articles like Brad Ausmus have duplicate links, links to sites that require registration, and some other wikis. I am not a sock and never was a sock. That case was closed and then someone revisited it. I was blocked this final time for an interpretation of the 3RR. This is a joke and the system fails. You should all feel ashamed because you have failed to protect the very thing you set out to support: Good content. //Tecmobowl 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In the event someone has something worthwhile to say, I will monitor this for a few more days before bidding you all farewell. //Tecmobowl 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your reference to my "spammed site," I have no such site. While many of us regret the fact that you engaged in sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR rather than focus on constructive contributions within Wikipedia guidelines, at least we can take some comfort from the fact that you indicate that you don't care about the decision to ban you. You indicate as well that Wikipedia is relatively unimportant. Some of us perhaps view it as more important than you do. I hope that the energies of those who engaged you in extensive discussion on these matters over the past weeks can, likewise, now be focused on more constructive efforts. I wish you well.--Epeefleche 17:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I encourage you to consider the proposal, (per MyThoughts above), and rejoin the community. However, it is your choice to make, not mine. Best. Peace.Lsi john 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Epeefleche - It appears you again have failed to read what I wrote. You have spammed fg into wiki, that does not mean it is your site. You attacked me out of the gate and you haven't let up since. I'm banned and you still can't get back to content. Take whatever comfort you want and just move on.

Actually, I did as always read what you wrote. While I have not spammed, I gather I need no longer discuss this with you. Best of luck in your future endeavors.--Epeefleche 05:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• LSI John I will not join the adopt program under false pretenses. It is not targeted at someone like me. I am fairly well read on the guidelines and policies. They had 3-weeks to get the debate hashed out and they couldn't do that. The problem here is the lack of focused discussion and the inability of anyone on here to conduct that. The whole Baseball Project needs to be adopted. I would return and join in on that, but that's it. This whole thing is just a failure of people to do something constructive. I'll check in here for one more day, but I don't expect anything to change. //Tecmobowl 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is only being suggested that you join it. Nobody is suggesting that you acknowledge any 'reason' for joining it, other than it is a requirement for unbanning. Therefore there would be no 'false' pretenses... you would be joining the program in order to be unbanned and return to editing. It seems a fair offer and I can also understand why it might be distasteful to you. If you wish to have a positive influence on the Baseball articles, you'll need to be an editor! Anyway, as I said, its your decision. It's unlikely that I will follow up again on this. Best Regards, truly. Peace.Lsi john 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. The false pretense is that I am the problem here. I'm not going to pretend that I was the problem simply to get you guys to unblock me. Hopefully, now you guys can go and fix the links section on Brad Ausmus and get articles like Mike Schmidt up to par. //Tecmobowl 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• On occasion, even an innocent person accepts a plea, rather than face the cost of a trial and a potential errant guilty verdict. None of that specifically addresses you (or anyone else in this case), and yet it could be applied in any manner you see fit. I hate to see someone who could be a valuable contributor, stand on principle and be perm blocked. You've already been 'deemed' guilty, this is an offer of parole. I say grab it. But what do I know. ;) Cheers. Peace.Lsi john 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl, you need to stop lecturing everyone else, and start looking inward. You were warned by admins at least as far back as October [5] to cease and desist from doing whatever you felt like on wikipedia. And there is this other cautionary note from the day before you said "la dee da" to me and threw the gauntlet down: [6] You have been a contentious user from the get-go. It just happened to reach a critical mass in June, when enough editors were finally ready to stand up to your bullying tactics. Baseball Bugs 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs and you need to stop poking the nest with a stick. You must realize that nothing you have to offer Tecmobowl will be taken constructively. I'm left to wonder why you persist? Peace.Lsi john 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• LSI John - I didn't want to go at first. I am a good contributor, but when third parties were asked to help and they don't get crap like this to stop, there isn't much I can do about it. You should be able to see by now who is instigating the process and who just simply wants to move on. I came here to make the content better. I tried so very hard to move the conversations toward the content and eventually I just gave up. I opened the MC on the Baseball Project and they mucked that up too. I was not here to make friends. I was not here to let a few misguided people dictate content just because they wanted to bully me and others. Principles are important, but they don't really apply here. There world will go on tomorrow with or without wikipedia. This whole scenario has showed why so many people stay away from this site. Be well. You have been an outlet of reason throughout this. I suspect that you and I understand each other completely right now. Let the others say what they want, don't get sucked into the mess any more than you have. //Tecmobowl 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• It looks like we've run the course here. I love how the discussion on the SJJ page has gone. Agreeing with someone just because they don't want to move on. That's not a way to protect content. Tecmobowl 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes compromise is for the better good. Perhaps you call it caving. It is one link, on one article. An external link at that. Yes, it provides unique and useful content. No, it is not worth a knock down drag out fight. As you say, life will go on, with or without that link. Sir, you have given up your right to complain or be unhappy. By your choice, you too, have failed to protect content, just in a different way. Peace.Lsi john 02:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Uh...that's not compromise. This, like their defense of the fg site, is based on opinion not backed by wiki rules. There are pieces of the policies and guidelines that are applicable; however, the majority is not. I have not given up any right, nor have I failed to protect content. and with that, I'm outtie...now please .... go fix the articles. Tecmobowl 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam.

Behold, one point of agreement amongst you, Irishguy and me... the removal of something called "homerunpace.com", posted by User:Guilpert. Baseball Bugs 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)