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

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

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)