THC Science

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

User:TJ Spyke

I've about had it with this fellow. I blocked him a while back for 9RR. At the time I left him a big message about needing to watch his step in future. Clearly, he did not pay attention, because he's just been blocked again for edit-warring, and his block log is very lengthy, nearly all composed of 3RR blocks. He is clearly not getting it.

Therefore, I suggest that as a community we place TJ Spyke on revert parole for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he violates this, he may be blocked for any length of time up to a week. After three such blocks, the next block length may be indefinite. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. Moreschi ^Talk 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a lot of WP:3RR blocks. I have to agree, revert parole is the way to go here. Just to clarify though, how long of a period of revert parole are you suggesting?--Isotope23 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say a year? I genuinely don't think this user is an evil person, but he has a problem with revert-warring, and thus far is not getting it. Moreschi ^Talk 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR to the extreme, this is OUT of control. That was says the summary of the first block on 31 August 2006 by Voice of All. This means that now it is OUT of control². A revert parole sounds appropriate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I think this is entirely uncalled for.
He's been blocked at least twice for fighting vandalism. (That's how I choose to describe an action which includes removing a deletion notice simply because "articles have souls" and spyke must not have a soul for wanting to delete them)
His most recent block was not for 3RR, but for 'edit-warring', which included in an article that was being constantly vandalized over and over again, including not only unsourced content, but even removing requests for sources.
I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes, but he's been doing the best he can, has gone from flagrant 3RRs to trying very hard not to break it (To some, that's gaming the system. But when it comes to outright unsourced info from anonymous ips, it's still understandable, even if you don't approve of it).
Not a single thing even remotely suggests that he's trying to be disruptive, or edit-war with good-faith editors.
Furthermore, I think it's a bit unfair to put up a CS notice on someone who's just been blocked for ten days, and won't be able to defend himself for a week. Even if you want to try something like this, it needs to wait. Let the guy defend himself. Bladestorm 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough, hadn't thought about the block. He can still post on his talk page, though, and that can be posted here. He's been blocked, what 12 times now, all of those for revert-warring, and most of those this year. The time I blocked him was for 9RR, just ridiculous. I don't actually dispute his good faith, but it's just not working at the moment. We can't really have edit-warring like this. Trying to be disruptive or not, he seemingly will not stop edit-warring. Hopefully, this will end that problem. Moreschi ^Talk 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not swayed by that justification of his actions, but I'd fully support leaving this open until he is unblocked or letting him respond on his talkpage and someone posting it here. As Moreschi said, I don't think anyone is arguing that TJ is trying to be malicious or disruptive necessarily (if he was we'd probably be discussing an indef block), but he is being disruptive in many cases and doesn't seem to be stopping on his own.--Isotope23 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, left a note saying either he can post on his talk, or that I'm willing to unblock him purely so that he can participate here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'd prefer to let him defend himself first, I still feel compelled to point some things out.
First, the danger of the 'block log'. While although they can be valuable for keeping track of actual disruptive influences, they're also a way to propagate error. For example, Spyke has been wrongly blocked at least three times (Yes, I intend to prove that). However, those blocks were still used against him. That is, future blocks are justified by prior blocks, some of which weren't even valid to begin with.
They "poison the well".
Anyways, he's been blocked 12 times. An impressive number.

The first time, I assume to be valid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (Though, it was nearly a year ago)
The second one, I also assume to be valid. Same reason. (He was unblocked less than an hour later, but without knowing the details, I still assume it was a valid block)
Third, ditto. Presumably valid.
Fourth, ditto.
Fifth, ditto. (Again, unblocked same day, but that doesn't imply it wasn't a valid block)
1. Just a note. Around this time, he started getting the idea. And that's why they started getting much farther between.
Sixth, entirely invalid. Someone created an article for a single (unreleased-at-the-time, if I remember correctly) channel of the Wii Menu. It contained no more information than was in the Wii Channels article. He tried to nominate it for deletion or redirect it. Steve HP refused to allow the redirect to the correct location. Realizing that he was in trouble of getting blocked for perceived edit-warring, spyke then tried to add a tag suggesting it be merged with the correct article. That, too, was summarily removed. But this doesn't even cover the frustrating part. Here are some of the edit summaries that he was faced with:
1. There's no reason to delete this page, aside from your own sense of "justice."
2. Don't you have a soul? Think of how this poor page feels being deleted!
3. I'm not saying the article's being deleted, I'm saying the page is. But you're begging the question: Do you have a soul or don't you?
4. So then you don't have a soul? =( I guess that's why you'd want to hurt a poor, defenseless, little page. You may not have a soul, but these pages do!
5. There is a place on the internet where the souls of deleted pages go. This place is called "SomethingAwful." Can you really subject a page to that sort of torture?
6. So, um, yeah... It's very hard to assume good faith when the other person is insisting that articles have souls (even if you don't have one). And yet, this block was effectively used against him the next time someone saw his block log.
Seventh, presumably valid. Though I have to wonder if the fact that his previous (invalid) block had just expired might've played a role in his getting reblocked. Had he not just come off a block, who knows if he would've been treated more leniently.
Eighth, also presumably valid.
Ninth, invalid. Not because the admin was malicious or anything, but...
1. Look at his subsequent unblock, where you find out that he actually sourced the supposed BLP concern. The blocking admin simply didn't see it.
2. The blocking admin used past blocks (even the invalid one) as one of the reasons for the block.
3. Note that another admin realized that it was a (good faith) mistake to block him, and unblocked him.
Tenth, invalid. Both because he was blocked for fighting vandalism, and because the blocking admin personally revoked it, calling it "too close to call".
1. Incidentally, since "too close to call" doesn't really prove it was invalid, look here for my take on the subject at the time. The person he was 'edit-warring' with got mad that he couldn't add a fansite to an article. He then decided to make wp:points by constantly deleting valid links. (Anyways, you can read a better description at that link)
2. Just for anybody who doesn't follow that link: User:Maxamegalon2000, User:Dancter, and User:Nandesuka were all also fighting that vandal. Spyke just got caught up in the middle of it. But there was no question that it was certainly an invalid block.
Eleventh block, presumably valid. However, even the block summary acknowledges that his past blocks (including at least three outright invalid ones) were used against him.
Twelfth and current block. Probably valid, mostly because I tend to try to assume good faith... A few things to note on this one, though.
1. Was the same blocking admin as a previous outright invalid block.
2. That previous invalid block was the result of the blocking admin failing to adequately look at the situation before blocking (incidentally, another admin easily spotted what was going on, and only blocked the actual disruptive editor). Admins, like everyone else, are only human. And mistakes happen. But that isn't spyke's fault.
3. This current block includes "edit-warring" (though not 3RR) in an article that's been incredibly heavy in both vandalism and outright unsourced nonsense from anonymous IPs.

Now then, considering everything here... Yes. 12 blocks.
Three were absolutely invalid. So, 9 blocks.
At least three directly cited past blocks which included invalid blocks.
At least one was by someone who had already imposed an invalid block due to their not examining the article's history closely enough.
There are only 6 blocks that aren't either immediately invalid, and that don't at all cite previous blocks that include invalid blocks. That is, a maximum of 6 untainted blocks.
Six is still a lot. Personally, I have none. But the bulk of spyke's actual bad behaviour is behind him. I think this is worth remembering.
Also, if anyone has a problem with me calling blocks 'invalid', I'd prefer they directly address those concerns. Tell me which ones were valid, so I can explain it better. Because I don't take that kind of statement lightly. If I say it was 'invalid', then I mean it was obviously invalid. (maybe not to the admin at the time, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, absolutely and certainly invalid)
I can't count the number of times I've argued with spyke. The number of edits of his that I didn't like. But what I've come to learn is that he really is a positive influence overall here. And, again, I'm prepared to defend and properly explain any claims I've made here, so please don't just dismiss any of them. Bladestorm 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought he was a negative influence here overall, I'd want him banned outright. I don't. I want to help him. I think not letting him revert ad nauseam is more likely to help Wikipedia, and him, than not. And, by the way - I blocked for 9RR, so if you don't mind, I think that was completely valid. Moreschi ^Talk 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just assume it was valid. #'s 6, 9, and 10 are the ones I assert to be invalid, with the current one being slightly suspect.

My concern with imposing extreme punishments on him (beyond the current 10+ day block, which I still think is outrageous), is very much connected to my overall thesis.

He's been blocked repeatedly for fighting vandals. At least twice, possibly thrice (depending on your take on his current block). In fact, fighting vandals, and forcing people to source information, is one of his contributions to wikipedia. An inability to revert if someone removes a {{fact}} tag would be a severe limitation when it comes to articles that aren't regularly policed by admins. Bladestorm 21:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, get someone else to revert. He can talk to me. If he's got a problem, he can come to me, and I'll have a look at the issue at hand. He can involve others. You can do this sort of thing. Wikipedia will not fall apart if you wait for a bit. Use the talk page. Just don't revert.

I'm not thinking of this in terms of punishment: I honestly think this is best for him, and for Wikipedia. He must learn to discuss and involve others, get consensus, rather than flat revert. I blocked him for 9RR - 9 reverts on one article in one day! - left him a sermon - and he's straight back to edit-warring. I don't want him blocked: I want him to become a better Wikipedian. I tried talking to him, and that hasn't worked. This just might. Moreschi ^Talk 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You talked to him. And, since then, he hasn't even actually broken 3RR yet. I realize that we don't want people "gaming the system". But a moving target isn't fair either.

"You did nine reverts! Four is a block!" "Okay, then I'll stop at three" "Forget four! Three's enough!" (btw, did he even make it to three?)

Frankly, I don't even take it as irrefutable that he is currently edit-warring. The specific rationale for the block was never explained. "Edit-warring", that did not exceed 3 per day, across three articles, at least one of which he'd recently been fighting vandalism, by an admin with a past history of blocking him because he didn't realize spyke was fighting a vandal. With no further explanation given.

You really take that as absolute proof that he even is still breaking the rules? I had really hoped that you'd look into whether or not he's been given a raw deal. Yes. Nine is insane. It's stupid and inexcusable. But that's why he was blocked for that. He did his time. CS is for an ongoing problem.

Tell me, do you personally believe that the previous block by the same admin was valid? Even though he was fighting a vandal? Even though another admin had already caught the problem, and only blocked the actual vandal, even though at least two admins were doing the exact same thing spyke was to fight that vandal? Because that's a very important issue in terms of whether or not it's fair to say he's still edit-warring. Bladestorm 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, Moreschi. Maybe some form of mentorship would be appropriate as well. Blueboy 96 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, know what? Since his alleged current edit-warring is supposedly a strong sign of the problem, let's just look at some of that edit-warring.

I'll admit, I only chose one of the three articles that were cited. Since I'm not a wrestling fan, I just chose the only article I have any experience with: The ECW article. So, I picked that article, and looked at his last five edits, which spanned a couple days.

Here is the first edit. He changed a link to skip the redirect. Obviously not edit-warring.

Here is the second edit. The article has had quite a few people constantly trying to change the 'opening theme'. They're always unsourced. Even though it was plainly a bad edit, spyke still didn't revert it, out of fear of 3RR. Instead, he added a 'fact' tag. It should have been reverted, but that's beside the point. Adding a fact tag isn't edit-warring.

Here is the third edit. A minor correction, including a very nice edit summary explaining it. Certainly not edit-warring. Just a friendly correction.

Here is the fourth edit. This, too, is merely a minor correction, with a nice edit summary explaining it. (Note to anyone who doesn't follow the links: This is NOT the same correction. That might be construed as edit-warring) In this case, clearly not edit-warring.

Here is the fifth and final (most recent) edit. Adding fact tags. (Incidentally, moreschi, I was wrong on your talk page, THIS was an identical edit to a previous one) This is the closest he came to edit-warring on that article. Adding a fact tag that was previously removed without the other editor providing a source. Removing fact tags from dubious claims is vandalism. In any event, adding a fact tag to a dubious claim is not edit-warring.

And, there we have it. Five edits across a couple days. Two were to add fact tags (not edit-warring, and at least one was in response to direct vandalism). Two were correcting minor (separate) issues (also not edit-warring). One was to fix a link to a redirect into a link to the actual article (obviously not edit-warring).

That is to say, the "edit-warring" that was claimed for the ECW article was non-existant. Maybe it was further back? I dunno. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive, it was only necessary to look at the edits he was doing at the time. I think going back a smidge further was more than adequate. But this raises a problem. The block summary said he was edit-warring in that article. However, he wasn't (at least, not when he was blocked. You're more than welcome to go back further if you want to, but I only bothered with the time corresponding to when he was actually blocked) If three of his former blocks were definitely bad, and the current block refers to edit-warring that never happened... Why are community sanctions necessary? Bladestorm 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sanction, as he revert wars/edit wars and 3RRs too much. He has been warned about this behavior many times, but ignores it. In my opinion, he is claiming ownership on many of the articles he reverts many times. I believe he has been warned about article controlling and ownership in the past as well. The fact he refuses to listen, is a sign a sanction must happen. If it doesn't happen, he will probably continue his warring ways. I see no other way to change his ways at this point. After many failed warnings, this is the right next step. RobJ1981 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you can say where this alleged warring, to which you refer, occurs? Perhaps diffs? Bladestorm 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not alleged, it's a fact. I don't have time to list the diffs, but here is the recent articles where he was warring: WWE One Night Stand, TNA Victory Road and Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Look through his block history, many of the 3RR violations were warring. Why exactly did you call it alleged? Frankly he has reverted vandals, but many times it's his personal view of what he wants in the article against anyone that he doesn't agree with. Why do you seem to be against this sanction? TJ Spyke has done this behaviour for a while, been warned and told to stop. Yet he continues, and gets blocked again, warned again, and it just repeats over and over. A sanction must happen here, otherwise the cycle will just continue. TJ could promise to change, but history shows he doesn't change his ways. Many blocks and he's still at it, that's a big sign something big (a sanction) must be used to improve how he edits. RobJ1981 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd prefer if you read my reasoning before asking rhetorical questions about my reasoning. The fact that you listed the ECW article, when I just finished showing that that one didn't apply merely illustrates that you weren't actually addressing what I said. And, no, it isn't a fact unless you prove it. I say, "alleged", because the admin who imposed the current block cited an article where he wasn't edit-warring. If you don't wish to prove your statements, fine. You don't have to. I can't force anybody to do anything. But don't pretend something's a fact if you don't have a shred of evidence; especially when I've gone to great lengths to prove my side. Bladestorm 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly support this sanction. If I assume that what everything Bladestorm said is true, then 6 of those blocks are entirely legit, and in 3 others he got blocked for a legitimate reason in spite of the fact that the admins were taking tainted data into account. So in 9 instances he deserved a block, and it was for the same reason every time. That is totally unacceptable. I take his recent edit warring without going over 3RR as spitting in the face of Wikipedia policies. He isn't stupid. He understands full well that he is not supposed to revert edits made in good faith anymore if the revert is contested, and if the person refuses to talk that he is supposed to go through the dispute resolution process. Why he refuses to do so is anyone's guess, but the reason for his refusal is irrelevant. He continues to ignore the policies, and a stronger message must be sent. WP:AGF doesn't apply to him anymore. This has been explained to him on too many occasions for him to not get it. He is an adult, and he must be reprimanded like an adult who constantly harasses his coworkers would be. This behavior is absurd. The Hybrid 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, hybrid, which of these five edits are edit-warring? (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Especially, which of them were flagrant efforts to skirt 3RR? (Keeping in mind that adding 'fact' tags is the only edit that's repeated among those edits)

Also, what specific behaviour in general are you referring to? (But, seriously, which of those edits are proof of serious edit-warring, to the point of skipping the waiting-for-a-fourth-revert?) Bladestorm 07:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the summary for this edit. That summary can basically count as a confession to edit warring on that article. The summary of the diff that I just provided shows that he clearly thought that he was edit warring, but continued to do so up to a point that he feared he would be blocked if he continued. That is very worrisome. The Hybrid 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he only did 2 reverts preceding that edit. Here they are. [1][2] Of course, that isn't the only article that he warred on to get himself blocked, according to the blocking admin. The Hybrid 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the specific behavior I'm referring to is edit warring. The Hybrid 08:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, but can't log in here, or type for very long)

So... you're suggesting that, on the 8th, after several apparently legitimate edits on the eighth, the blocking admin extended back a day or so to find "edit-warring" for which to block? Yeesh, I sure as heck hope not, because that'd be crossing the line to a rather ludicrous extent.

You may or may not know this, but blocking is meant to prevent bad behaviour, rather than punish it. If he had supposedly been misbehaving some non-specified amount of time prior, and had been entirely behaving since, then there'd be zero justification for blocking at all, which would automatically make it a bad block.

What's more, the "edit-warring" you cited, even going back a day before he was blocked, was of him asking anonymous ip's for sources for dubious claims. That's not edit-warring. All unsourced material in wikipedia can be removed at any time. And, when people remove even the requests for sources, that is called vandalism. Frankly, I don't believe for a second that you'd ever put up with anyone treating you that way. You know full well that if someone were to try making a silly claim like, "The opening theme for Family Guy is now Gangsta's Paradise", without sourcing it, you'd tend to not believe them. And, if you were to assume good faith, and simply add a 'fact' tag to that, and they deleted that, then, no, re-adding that 'fact' tag would not be edit-warring. Yeesh. (~Bladestorm)72.88.47.135 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block was preventative. There is a clear pattern of behavior with this guy, so it is logical to assume that he will continue edit warring just like he has done since he got here. Saying the block was punitive is like saying that we should never block vandals because they may suddenly have a change of heart and become a good editor.

Anyway, note the confession that I cited. It doesn't matter if it was vandalism or not. He thought that he was edit warring, and tried to skirt the system by not going over 3RR. The circumstances to this particular case, which is not the only one cited by the blocking admin, are irrelevant. The confession shows intent; it shows that he intended to revert until he was at risk of being blocked, and then stop. The intent shows that he has a problem, and that if we don't send him a strong message right here and now, he will continue, and eventually get himself blocked indefinitely. The Hybrid 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If TJ Spyke hasn't gotten the point that revert warring is bad yet, then a revert parole seems to be the most appropriate course of action to make him realize that he needs to discuss changes he makes and makes sure that consensus and conventions are in line with what he's doing rather than reverting being the immediate course of action. I also suggest that after this 250-hour block is over that someone moniter that reverting more heavily than before, because somehow I don't think that the reverting will cease completely. — Moe ε 22:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another person comes in, demanding that something be done about all this bad conduct, and still not actually including any specific proof.

Seems like arbcom might be a better idea. Those people actually require proof. (~Bladestorm) 72.88.47.135 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those of us coming in here demanding that something be done have been editing with this person for months, if not more than a year. That is a very powerful statement, and one that you should take note of. The Hybrid 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want proof. Look no furthur than TNA Victory Road where sure enough there is TJ Spyke revert warring. Please note that editors can be blocked for partial reverts as well. Just because there is another few minor edits in a revert doesn't mean it's not a revert and revert warring under your IP address can get you blocked as well, which here TJ Spyke also did.

TJ Spyke: [3] [4][5]

65.37.60.195 (TJ Spyke's IP address): [6] and just in case you were wondering, yes, the IP does trace back to Rochester, New York, so unless there was two editors from Rochester making the same edit to TNA Victory Road, TJ Spyke committed 3RR there, and judging from his block log, this wasn't the only place. — Moe ε 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke. - hahnch e n 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now that he has another confirmed sockpuppet for e3dit warring.. maybe now we can finally put forward the plan to put him on revert parole. — Moe ε 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reset TJ Spyke's block to 250 hours, due to the confirmed sockpuppet. SirFozzie 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

In light of the confirmed sockpuppetry, I propose a one-month ban, and indefinite revert parole once he comes off that block. Now that he's got two confirmed socks, he's got little choice but to accept if he wants to keep editing. Blueboy 96 20:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the one-month ban and revert parole time. — Moe ε 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support it as well. He shouldn't think he is above Wikipedia policies. Block evading by using another account is simply a sign he refuses to listen. RobJ1981 21:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a sockpuppet being discovered, I believe that a six month ban and an infinite revert parole would be the best way to deal with this. The Hybrid 06:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite agreeing with many of his edits, his behavior shouldn't be taken lightly. I support the one month ban and further revert parole. Despite him being a heavy contributer to the Wikiproject and making many constructive edits, he went and sockpuppeted. I've lost a of the respect I had for him. Gavyn Sykes 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch out the above proposal...

Could you do me a huge favor? User:74.36.18.128 recently vandalized my userpage and a WHOIS says it's from Rochester, New York. Could you see if this is in relation to User:TJ Spyke? — Moe Epsilon 00:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably is. But nothing definitive. --Jpgordon 00:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite the recent sockpuppet User:Lrrr IV being found out as being a TJ Spyke sockpuppet, I did a WHOIS search on the IP address that vandalized my userpage amd it came from Rochester, New York, same location as TJ Spyke, and Jpgordan as I cross-posted above, has done a CheckUser that, despite definitive evidence, says it probably was TJ Spyke. I propose a longer block than 1 month is applied to TJ Spyke. — Moe ε 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That won't be Spyke. Wrong editing times. - hahnch e n 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replies — Moe ε 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack. Endorse Hybrid's proposal for a six-month ban and indefinite revert parole. "Likely" is enough to impose sanctions. Only reason I didn't suggest a straight-out indef is because of questions about the legitimacy of one of his blocks. I take it it's understood that one more slip-up and it's indef. Blueboy 96 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to his contributions he edits from about 8pm to 8am, so I think that IP might not be Spyke (unless he's editing it from work etc..). I think he should be blocked but as you can see from the contributions he does make fairly good edits. I think he should be blocked, but then unblocked in about a month. I then think that if he steps out of line again (3RR etc.) he is blocked indefinitely. That's what I'm currently on, if I sware of vandalise on Wikipedia again - I'm blocked indef. This is my proposal (only a proposal):

Spyke stays blocked until 16th August 2007.
Spyke gets unblocked on 16th August 2007.
If Spyke steps out of line after unblock regardless of what it's about (3RR, vandalsm etc..), he is then blocked indefinitely.

That's what I think. Davnel03 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one month longer added on to his current block seems a bit light. An unrepentant edit warrior with a very long history using socks to dodge a block warrants a six month time-frame, in my opinion. The Hybrid 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One month seems light to me too, six months is more like it with that history. Odd nature 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman

This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's user page to argue! [7] This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--Prosfilaes 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence?
I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.[8]
I note that JoshuaZ has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?
I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my user page).
As I noted on the RfA, that User:Mainstream_astronomy

has just deleted an 18-month old article, CREIL,[9] with no discussion
He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag,[10] (under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment,[11] that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research
He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.[12]
I currently suspect that User:Mainstream_astronomy is a sockpuppet of user:76.214.223.142, both of whom are contributing to an AfD here

--Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:

FM accused me [13] of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit,[14] suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing"
In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: Category:Immanuel Velikovsky and Category:Pseudoscience
At the TIME of removing the tag, the Category:Immanuel Velikovsky, did not exist as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.
Hence removing Category:Immanuel Velikovsky was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.
The Category:Pseudoscience was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The Skpetics Dictionary does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?)
Hence removing Category:Pseudoscience was a sensible editorial decision.
Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"
On the contrary, adding the Category:Pseudoscience without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --Iantresman 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious. His technique is repeatably to pretend at sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary. I had enough of him a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator. SirFozzie 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy 96 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]