User talk:Tecmobowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epeefleche (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 14 June 2007 (talk page deletion guidelines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tecmobowl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

  • I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant an extended ban. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at Talk:Kevin_Youkilis.
  • The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI.
  • Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue here. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use WP:AGF and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me.
  • I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //Tecmobowl

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant an extended ban. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant an extended ban. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= * I have not violated any wikipedia policies that warrant an extended ban. I was banned last week for violations of the 3RR (which I feel were unjust) and then again two days ago by another admin who mistook ongoing discussion (with this very user) for reverting. The discussion took place at [[Talk:Kevin_Youkilis]]. * The admin who has placed the block did so based on an ongoing incident with me. This is a blatant COI. * Irishguy has banned me based on his conclusion that I am a sock. He raised the issue [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl|here]]. It is a false assumption and not well supported. Further, he failed to use [[WP:AGF]] and has made a number of false accusations. I simply want the opportunity to state my side of the story. I cannot do this without a ban. Seeing as he banned me, it seems he is trying to silence me. * I have continued to better the information available on wikipedia based on the many policies already in place. As this very talk page displays, I am learning more and more about how things are done on here. //[[User:Tecmobowl|Tecmobowl]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I didn't give you a "long term banning". Your existing block was extended for another 48 hours because you were using sockpuppets to evade your block. Your sock El redactor showed up on my talk page. How would he know about that conversation? It isn't because you told him...you told the wrong guy but somehow El redactor knew anyway. As such, that account was blocked as an obvious sock. More evidence here. IrishGuy talk 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not used sockpuppets and you have abused your rights as an admin. Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I deserve to be banned. //Tecmobowl 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is simply a matter of semantics. You have still abused your rights as an admin and you still have no way of substantiating your claims. They are false. //Tecmobowl 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't semantics. A block isn't a ban. They are very different. Bans don't expire, your block will. I haven't abused anything and all the evidence is at the link above. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I have "adjusted" the comment so that should make you happy. You have still abused your rights, that is not proof. I cannot speak for other people, but you have commented on pages that the user has also posted to, doesn't seem to hard to make that connection. You have also played judge and jury, ignored WP:AGF and refused to look at user records (or whatever it's called). I believe you have accused me of a WP:COI, but you are the one with the COI, not me. Sorry, but you have really dropped the ball here. //Tecmobowl 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just read your latest comments here. Your continued reference to me blanking this page leaves me befuddled. It is a perfectly accepted course of action. Furthermore, I have removed the previous requests for an unblock for two reasons: a) They were at the top of the page and had been denied. The recent request is now in place at the top. b) I have never been "banned" for this type of activity, and have never looked into the appeals system. I did not understand how the process works and now that I am familiar with it, I will follow due course. I will agree, you don't require cooling off. You do however, deserve to have your actions reviewed by others with the power to revoke your admin status. // Tecmobowl 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki Talk Page comment deletion guidelines Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments state that: "deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context. In that case you have several options:  :::::::*Ask the person who replied (on their talk page) if it's OK to delete or change your text :::::::*use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."--Epeefleche 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Contrary to his above assertion, Tecmo has been ignoring Wiki policies in a recidivist obsessive manner while maintaining a non-apologetic air. He claims that the directive to be Bold allows him to do so. He within a 3-day period this month was blocked 3 times by admins for 3RR violations, and has generally refused to adhere to consensus or reason. For a number of editors, including me, his activities have proven to be a significant distraction from positive contributions to Wiki. Admittedly, it is difficult to follow his admonitions from admins (and others) --inasmuch as he blanks his talk page repeatedly, and asks people not to discuss their problems with his behavior on his talk page. But a review of the following [1] will give you some of the flavor:

--Epeefleche 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

//As a note, I have removed a posting of my edit summary...people can see this and don't need it here mucking up a discussion. Now onto the topic//

Where excatly are your positive contributions? The only thing you have done is argued with people about their behavior instead of focusing on the content. I have created a number of articles, even since this fiasco began and have continued to improve a number of articles. I'll gladly point you to some examples of all of this; however, I suspect you will simply ignore it. Furthermore, I have every right to blank my talk page and will continue to do so at my discretion. If you would like to read more on the policy read this.

The policy that you refer to above says: "deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context. In that case you have several options:
Ask the person who replied (on their talk page) if it's OK to delete or change your text
use strike-through or a place holder to show it is a retrospective alteration."
You, however, are not following the policy that you just referred to.--Epeefleche 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you have failed to follow the above policy, which you referred me to yourself, as the policy indicates would happen you have caused problems. I replied, you deleted parts of my comments, and now a reader cannot follow the flow of conversation. You could have asked me if it would be OK to delete, as is suggested above. I would however have said know, as it distorts the conversation. You could have gone with option 2. Instead, you delted a portion of my entry, making it more difficult to follow the conversation. As you have done with every other critical commment on your talk page in the past. This is a failure to follow the policy, and is singularly unhelpful. I request that you follow the policy, and restore it. If you wish, with strikeouts, as is mentioned above. The material is pertinent as it allows readers to see the history of complaints, blocks, and warning referenced on your talk page, culled out from the rest of the entries.--Epeefleche 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to my contributions, they are not the issue. But people can look at my history page to see them if they wish. As to you being a disruptive element, the above entries that I culled from your history page make the case. I imagine that you may well have the ability to make helpful contributions. Unfortunately, you have done the opposite to a great degree.--Epeefleche 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and all these other people who insist on slapping me with vandalism warnings because I remove unsourced material and external links are off base. You fail to stay on topic in a number of discussions about it and insist that others are stonewalling you. Nobody is stonewalling you, I have tried to discuss the topic on hand several times. You continue to spam a site that many have a problem with. I refuse to engage in discussions with people who do not focus on the relevant topic. I am a bold editor and will remain so. Lastly, consensus has NOT been established just because you say it has. Bring up the fangraphs site on the WP:EL talk page and I bet they will tell you the same thing I am. First, establish that the content is significantly unique to warrant inclusion. Second, see if it offers information useful to people who are not experts on the given topic. Third, see if it should be considered an additional resource or a replacement for a pre-existing resource. //Tecmobowl 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of staying on topic, and keeping substantive discussion in one place, I would suggest that you make any appropriate comments on the subject of Fangraphs at [2]. The discussion there evidences a consensus, and even your comments suggest uniqueness of the url, as well as the uniqueness of the url ... I'm not going to open up discussion here. Your other points are questions you can raise there, and I will respond there, so people don't have to chase your comments all over Wikipedia. You can find it there, as you have. Yet you seem to believe that the directive to be bold overrides the interest in consensus. That is wrong-headed. --Epeefleche 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop breaking up short comments. If you want to break up long comments, you should review the editing comments section i previously pointed to. It shows you how to do it so that you do not cause problems for readers. With regards to my removing of your text, context makes a big difference. The policy on a user page is clear (WP:UP). I can remove content
You are ignoring my quote above from the policy that you quoted to me, and in so doing flouting the very policy that you refer to. --Epeefleche 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment."""
Now, i have not removed anything that would change your meaning. I have simply removed the content because it is nothing more than filler content. I am unable to comment on that discussion at this time due to my block. //Tecmobowl 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By what you have done you have changed and diluted the meaning of my comment as well. It is more than filler content. It evidences for the reader the series of blocks, warnings, and admonitions that you have received on your talk page, while sparing them the effort of culling that information from your history page.
As to your commenting on the discussion about Fangraphs, if and when you are unblocked the indicated page would be the appropriate page for you to get your thoughts across. Tx.--Epeefleche 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tecmobowl&oldid=138043256"