Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WGB, about 2 days after gettng off a 7 day block for disruption, decided to start a second RFA; his behavior during and after the first one, not to rehash too much, was part of the reason for the block. This RFA was SNOW closed first by User:Nihonjoe, who WGB persuaded to reconsider, then a few minutes later by User:Anonymous Dissident. Incidentally, I and others who !voted in the RFA provided a fair number of links to WGB's past behavior, for anyone interested. After the second RFA was closed (both initially and finally), WGB proceeded to aggressively not get the point   and, in my opinion, troll   including suggesting that he lead a recreation of the entire process  and continuing after being told that his behavior constituted disruption. I feel that another block for disruption is warranted, though his content contributions are by all accounts good and I would not to lose him permanently. -- Pakaran 08:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for whatever I did wrong. Please do not ban me. I apologize for whatever wrongs and horribly awful edits i apparently am making in wikipedia. Please do not ban me from wikipedia or from RFA or whatever. Please no non main space ban or restrictions. I have honest and honorable intentions and I only want to help. I am not trying to cause problems or to disrupt anything. I am sorry for whatever I did wrong. But I do not deserve to be unfairly banned or unfairly removed from non main space just because truth be told a few people have a grudge and a personal bias against me. This site needs to be above that. I promise I am trying to be a good editor and that includes the RFA pages. I am sincere and my edits are legit. I have not done anything wrong to get banned. Look at my edits and they are legit. Please don't pick on me like this and please don't put a really unfair and really ridiculous censor on me either. Please.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your appology seems honest, and I don't relly think it is necessary to go to as much as a topic ban. However you must acknowledge that nobody here has anything personal against you. This was just a huge misunderstanding between a lot of people and I hope it won't get in anybody's way. We all just need a big Wikihug. =) > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  12:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, however I still think that you should take some kind of break from the project space... a ban, maybe not, but I hope you consider willingly keeping away from the project space for a little while. The T hi ng H a p p y New Year! 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'd love to stay and keep discussing this, but it's nearly 5:30 in the morning here... I should be getting to bed.


 * Comment - I propose an indef project space ban, as this is getting out of hand. --Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a project-space topic ban will help. They don't seem too interested in working well with others, as evidenced by their recent passive-aggressive !vote (obviously making a comment on their own actions and how they believe interactions should be handled). Killiondude (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I like to handle things according to levels of severity. Notice that he made that edit in the project space? Well a project space ban would have prevented that. I highly doubt he'll stay out of the project space though, so it's likely he'll end up blocked after a few hours. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice how all of his edits outside the mainspace are disruptive? Again: I don't see how a project-space ban will help anything. Killiondude (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well again that could be handled with an amendment, i.e. that WGB would be banned from anything related to adminship. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse this. A 1-year ban from RfA to me seems suitable. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support non-mainspace ban—as in, no edits outside of the article-namespace or his own talkpage. The user's disruption wasn't limited to RfA; it included gross personal attacks and editing of others' comments on ANI. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 08:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad, he is disrupting on other spaces. Should he be kick-banned from Wikipedia: and User_talk: (other than his own?) I find that a little too extreme. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just show him the door for the remainder of 2010 (during which time he'll either be bored of the site and leave or become a new sockpuppeteer). Behavior like this is not going to change in a week or a month.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 09:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is about time that I report how you people are harassing me to the entire bureaucrat group and to the entire admin group. It's now reached the point of no return due to the extreme viciousness that you are all displaying towards me. You leave me no choice but to let the entire group know how you are harassing me and you refuse to stop it.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have warned the people involved in harassing me and filing false abuse reports against me above. Now I have contacted all the proper authorities about this directly. I have thus followed all appropriate channels in responding to this vicious and despicable attack against me. If anyone wants to be removed from my complaint once I am discussing this with the bureaucrats then you can remove your false complaint against me here and/or apologize and I will be fine with that. I will just say in closing that I hope that one day you all learn manners and proper respect towards others.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WBG... hm... it took a few moments, but... I think I remember you... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest that we contact "the entire admin group" then? And why bureaucrats? They have nothing to do with anything and are all admins anyway... <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who exactly are you going to report us too? No one is being vicious to you, you aren't being constructive outside of the mainspace, therefore you aren't going to be allowed to continue to edit. You're skating on thin ice as it is, I suggest you keep your trap shut. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 09:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that you have indeed begun to notify a few bureaucrats, starting with those who closed your RfA. I doubt they'll have much trouble finding this thread.  -- Pakaran 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to stop feeding this diva and just resolve something already. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is there doesn't seem to be clear agreement on what to do. Tempted to suggest a short block while we work it out.  -- Pakaran 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would do something, but I neither have the consensus nor the tools to do so.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like he's going around notifying as many admins as he can about "our harassment" towards him... Also, Coffee, I hate to admit it, but your most recent comment was a tad bit harsh... "keep your trap shut" is not exactly the best thing to say in a situation like this. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>H <font color=#585>a <font color=#777>p <font color=#A57>p <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>New Year! 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be more accurate, he is contacting the entire list of (active?) bureaucrats.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 09:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Canvassing and forum shopping to me. See . -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse Indef Block. Repeated disruption, past history suggests it is unlikely to stop.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 09:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the previous actions. But please do not unfairly punish me further. I served my ban already and have since done NOTHING wrong and I have not broken any site rules since then. I have made many good and legit edits since then. Please do not be mean to me and punish me further for no reason.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support block this is not going to end well any other way at this point. If he decides to behave and come back silently, or email arbcom in 2 years, fine...  but not sure it's worth the disruption meanwhile.  I was a bit disappointed when he skipped me while notifying almost all the crats.  Would have been amusing to be notified of my own oppression.  -- Pakaran 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And nice.  -- Pakaran 10:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did say he was contacting every crat because he falsely believes that crathood is the next hierarchical step up from adminship.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disappointment be gone!: <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>H font color=#585>a <font color=#777>p <font color=#A57>p <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>New Year! 10:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse 72 hour block to reach a broader consensus. BTW, Coffee's comment was indeed a bit harsh, bordering incivility... > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please... this guy has tried everyone's patience. Telling him to shut up isn't really that harsh after his ridiculous disruption. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked you kindly and politley at least 5 times to please stop personally insulting me and to please stop breaking site rules on civility towards me. You continue to refuse to do so and you continue to insult me and act with incivility towards me. Whether you know it or not, eventually the way you treat others will catch up with you. I would be the house that you will have your admin status revoked eventually because you are extremely rude to others.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And we are all endorsing a block, so he should be blocked immediately, at least temporary to stop his disruption and so we can reach consensus. Or call a WP:SNOW and give him an indef already. But civility can be kept. No one it getting his nose broken here... > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And civility has been kept, I'm missing your point. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That I pictured you like this. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I'm not a stick man... Face-wink.svg <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Indef Block - He's become even more disruptive in the past few hours, it's time we show him the door. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 10:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Indefinite Block. Topic ban from admin-related areas for... oh, 4 or 5 months.  - This has gone on long enough. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>H <font color=#585>a <font color=#777>p <font color=#A57>p <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>New Year! 10:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: WBG appears to have canvassed 20-some users to come here and support him. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I've been looking through his most recent contributions, since he was unblocked... I cannot see any incivility, I cannot see any blatant attacks from him. All I see is someone who is simply upset because he didn't get exactly what he wanted, and someone who is simply being stubborn. I believe that an indefinite block is unwarranted, excessive, and punitive. Sure, editing other people's comments, and saying things like this are blatantly blockable offenses, but he was blocked for that a week ago. He's "done his time", and he has not done such things since he was unblocked, as far as I can see. He just simply needs to take a break from admin-related areas, even if it happens to be a forced break. In addition to this, I think that he has been the target of what seems to be a fair amount of harsh comments, most likely due to his behavior a week ago. But I no longer believe that these comments reflect the current situation... he is just frustrated, who wouldn't be? And although his comments are a tad bit heated, they certainly aren't blockable offenses. Therefore, I'm changing my vote... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>H <font color=#585>a <font color=#777>p <font color=#A57>p <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>New Year! 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Indef Block No point on keeping this discussion. He is going to keep wasting everybody's time. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since WGB just came off a week-long block, I would support an escalating block of two weeks plus an indefinite ban from all edits not directly related to mainspace work. Let's try not to lose their productive edits. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse Indef Block Let's end this miles-long train wreck before it goes planet wide. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse non-mainspace ban, user is socially incompetent. (I also note that he seems to be leaving "drop your grudge against me" messages on the talk page of every user who comments here...I can't wait to receive mine.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 11:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse non-mainspace ban or topic ban per TTTSNB if the present pattern of civility continues and WGB proves able to learn from his mistakes. -- Pakaran 11:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC) 11:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. He canvassed the 'crats. Obviously, they are not his personal army, and WGB has violated a couple of policies, so we can expect nothing of importance to happen. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  11:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse indef block <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► stannator ─╢ 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse non-mainspace ban; escalate if he violates it I'd love to give him another chance since he seems a good contributor, but if he persists in plowing the fallow field, we may as well bury him in it. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 11:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I support a non-mainspace ban, indefinite but not everlasting. To Wiki Greek Basketball: I think you'll find the ban beneficial. You appear to have made some decent content contributions, and the time off will allow you to get back to what really matters – the encyclopedia. When you've shown that you're able to interact with other users and understand the way Wikipedia works, and have made seeking adminship less of a priority, the situation can be reviewed. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest Immediate attempt at mediation between WGB and Coffee, who appears to be the key editor against whom he has a conflict. The results of that mediation attempt should be binding (yes, I know, "binding mediation" seems a misnomer.  WGB would need to understand that how he participates in that mediation is as much on display as the "evidence" provided.  Based on how he interacts in that mediation he could obtain an indef.  The results, as noted (and based on consensus where needed) would be the final word so that this project (and both editors) can move on in peace. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse indefinite block - Enough is enough - the behavior being manifested is simply not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. 173.52.67.64 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the above is me. I was logged out accidentally. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 13:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Please no.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse project space ban His continual insistence to edit project space pages and injecting his own take on RFA concerns me. --Rschen7754 14:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support an indefinite block as a second choice. --Rschen7754 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please no. I am very sorry. I am a good editor and my intentions are honorbale and my edits to RFA are being grossly misinterpreted. Please do not paint a false picture like that.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "apology" was more of an "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'll add the sorry word to make it look good." --Rschen7754 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Endorse project space ban or at least from RfA. His behaviour speaks for itself, and it has gone far enough. As for his apology, all I see is yet another "I'm right, you're wrong" comment. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No please no. I am sorry. And I am making honest and sincere edits to the RFA.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break
For those who haven't read, WGB presented an honest, GF apology. Please be open to dialogue and we can reach an agreement. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  13:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You call that an honest apology? He pretends to not know why he was blocked the first time. (Since then, on some user talkpages, he has acknowledged that he overreacted and that he "deserved that ban", although he then even tempers that apology by saying "but Coffee caused it all" ). I still see no evidence that this user is truly apologetic or even understands why his behavior was inappropriate. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I can only say I am sorry. I wonder how you would feel if you were me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say give him an absolute firm final warning that any further problems will result in an indef. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I didn't do anything wrong. I already served a ban from my earlier mistake. It is unfair to punish me twice for that.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, let's all be open to dialog. The guy is not trying to destroy Wikipedia, he is just very upset, and I believe we can reach an agreement with him, now that he seems slightly more open to dialog. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) You're right ignorance is not an excuse, nor does it count with an editor who has been around as long as WGB has been here. You're also all correct that not taking some degree of responsibility does not look good. However, I am trying to engage WGB to properly either deal with or flesh out his full concerns, in hopes that mediation takes place as I suggested. If he chooses to file an RFC against someone, that's his prerogative, but that's far better than random diatribes, true? I would suggest that this attempt to mediate is the last try. Give it a couple of days, does it really hurt? If he gets disruptive during the process, then yes, impose an indef. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno...he still seems to want to blame Coffee for his problems, which I don't agree with. It didn't seem like his apology was very sincere at all, and the fact that he canvassed various editors (me included) to try and get them on his side of things doesn't sit well with me either.  I think at this point a topic ban of RfA would be enough as there has been enough drama here to last for quite awhile.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sincere. Once again I am sorry. Please do not punish me further for the past, especially after I already served the ban for that. Please do not keep holding a grudge against me and trying to further punish me when it is not deserved.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How about we ask WGB to voluntarily stay away from RfA for now, and to focus any conflict resolution regarding to either the page I have setup as a "vetting process", and/or WP:RFM and/or WP:RFC? If he's truly trying to repent, then he will surely voluntarily refrain from what is considered additional fanning of the flames? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable proposal to me. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think more than that is going to be needed, but the page you have set up may be a good start. I hope you will talk with him some more about the "issues" he is listing there, because many of the complaints he is listing are either extremely petty (i.e., freaking out over relatively vanilla comments from Coffee, even though many users have said stuff to him that's just as harsh) or belie a misunderstanding of how WP and RFA actually work.
 * If something more than WGB's voluntary participation in this page will be necessary, here is a summary of the remedies that have been put forth above; perhaps they can be put to some sort of vote:
 * RFA-only ban: WGB is allowed to edit articles, talkpages, and project space, except for pages related to the RFA process and specific RFAs.
 * Project space ban: WGB is allowed to edit articles (and probably the associated talkpages), but may not edit anything else, including all WP and WT namespace pages. (Would this affect user talk pages as well?)
 * Block: Equivalent to a sitewide ban.
 * If anyone does think WGB should be given an opportunity to file an RFC/U or WQA, that doesn't necessarily need to delay a project space ban; it would be easy enough to elect to ban WGB from project space but allow a temporary exemption for RFC/U or WQA pages (whichever one he says he wants to pursue) for long enough for him to post one thread there; once the WQA is resolved or the RFC/U, then the ban would cover those pages as well.
 * <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't deserve any ban from anywhere. Please do not do that to me. How many times do I have to ask and apologize? Please don't ban me from anything. I am sincere to make good edits. I should not be punished for what happened before after I already served a week long ban.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, please don't get angry and upset. That has not helped you so far. Please, just calm down, we are trying to solve this peacefully. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  14:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Project space ban is something even ArbCom has very avoided in the past. Any user performing edits needs an outlet for reports, essentially. Would also make patrols impossible to perform as can be required. I admit Arb opinion on this could be a bit different as any content-related matters are reflected back down and the incident boards are split between content and policy; This could be "playing it safe" as to not have go try to develop a consensus for every board individually. On assumption of good faith that community-based sanctions are very serious and would be heeded to properly, I'd prefer to hope that just removal from WP:RFA with its subpages, talk pages and archives would be quite alright, along with a very hardline view on violations. Support RfA Restrictions as pretty foolproof from subjective interpretations and no imaginable exceptions being required. ...
 * I won't even say "ban" because that seems to be overly dramatic. It's community-imposed either way so its function would be no different. Apologies given are of course a great thing, but repeated actions speak more loudly and "sorry" isn't an escape card from any and everything. An RfC/U might be needed anyway to be "official" as community sanctions, but I'll also say that the user can probably still voluntarily agree to any level given above without any official user-specific incident needing to be filed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Any formal action. Can we give him one more chance? Normally, I'd support this kind of thing, but since he's responding to every !vote he's either sincere or a very persistent troll. I think we should at least give him a chance to stop being disruptive and actually see what he can bring to the project.  ceran  thor 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I like wise Oppose a ban. I don't think it is for anyone person to say it's cool or not to post a rfa. I would strongly urge Wiki Greek to read WP:SNOW and if it applies heed it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Update So far, a 3rd party vetting of his "concerns" is not going well. He's focused on his own interpretation of things, and cannot be objective. I have responded to 2 of his 5 sections of concerns. I will update again later. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that what I said there would not be talked about here. I am not responding there any further. I do appreciate your help a lot but you told me what I said there would not be part of this. I will not respond anymore because of that. Sorry but I have done nothing to get banned and I REALLY do not want any ban or block or any restrictions placed on me so I can't do that if it will be used against me as your post here was negative and against me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who had dealings with WGB before their block, I would like to comment on this. From what I can see, since their block was ended, they have not appeared to have been disruptive. OK, they somewhat daftly did a second RfA, but other than that, all their comments appear to be those of someone who feels (rightly or wrongly) that they have been dealt with unfairly. I would oppose a block of any length (based on the actions of WGB since their block ended), although I would not oppose a short-term (perhaps 3 months) ban from RfA areas. As to the apology, I do not feel that I apologize for whatever I did wrong is actually an apology - I would expect a self-proclaimed intelligent editor to understand what was wrong in their actions (even if they don't agree with it). I am going to leave a message on WGB's talk page, but I would like to end by saying that I would not like to see this good article editor driven away from Wikipedia. I just don't feel that they are ready for adminship in the forseeable future, and they should let this drop - as long as everyone else is willing to walk away from this as well. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't support the RFA ban either though. I am honestly not trying to disrupt anything there. My edits are being taken way out of context for some reason. I think they are mad at me just because of my RFA. I don't believe that is fair.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose a formal action at this point. Clearly Wiki Greek Basketball's actions over the past two weeks have been disruptive to say the least, however, behavior prior to the first RfA incident was not something that was a serious problem. While he continues tilting at windmills, he hasn't actually had a civility problem since coming off his block and it also appears that he is now ready to listen to other opinions, which was not the case even eight hours ago. I'd suggest that WGB voluntarily stay away from RfA for at least six months from now. However, if there are any new civility concerns, I'd say a block first, and then a ban. - Spaceman  Spiff  15:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I don't need blocked from RFA. I wish everyone would understand my edit was legit. It was sincere and legit.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I agree that WGB needs to work on his interactions with other editors (seriously work on them, and make significant changes), I agree that he hasn't been incivil since coming back. He just sounds very frustrated, which only makes sense when I've seen several editors treating him like dirt (for lack of a better metaphor). It seems that many people have tossed WP:AGF out the window simply because WGB seems to have a difficult time accepting criticism, constructive or otherwise. While he communicates decently in English, it is not his first language (he's from Greece according to a userbox on his page) so he may not pick up on some of the subtle hints and comments that people have made. Additionally, how he reacts may be as much a cultural thing as anything else. I believe that he is sincere in wanting to work with people, based on the comments he has made here and elsewhere. I think what really needs to be done is for him to work on thinking before he posts so he doesn't post TL;DR comments so often. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am not sure about my English skills. I think they are good because I was in the British technical school. But maybe I am making mistakes? I am not sure on that.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal
Let me call this "selective enforcement": ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) That based on my vetting of his issues, I recommend that if WGB still has issues with Coffee, he should file his WP:RFC/U within 48 hrs.  If not, it's time for him to simply move on.
 * 2) That WGB not be allowed to comment/interact on WP:RFA for a period of 30 days
 * 3) That WGB obtain a mentor to assist him in understanding basic Wikipedia policies including WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT.
 * 4) That should #2 or #3, or "moving on" as per #1 above fail, additional administrative action will be required.
 * What do you mean by move on? I have already moved on. I am not the one filing abuse reports or asking for others to be banned. I came off my block and I was put up for a ban almost immediately and the people were asking for a permanent ban. I moved on already. I had to serve the block and I did it. It was other people that were still angry with me and were wanting me banned. I am confused about the move on thing as I already moved on. I just don't want to get blocked again.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait..why the 30 day RFA ban? I am sorry OK. But I got blocked already for that. Why another one? This is so unfair.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to have RFA privileges so badly, it would help if you explain exactly why you really want to participate in RFA. So far, your contributions have been disruptive.
 * Also, do you really need to respond to nearly every message every user leaves? We all know how you feel now and we could really do without the constant reminders of it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just defending myself. I don't like it being said I am making bad edits or other stuff when I am not. I want to be in RFA because I want to be in admin group. How can I get in with admin group if I am not even allowed to participate there?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WGB, you need to accept that no RFA of yours will pass for the forseeable future. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How come? I am planning on trying again in a few months. I should pass the next time.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you definitely won't. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the truth. If you have your heart set on being an admin, carefully consider all the input that was given to you during your first RFA, contribute constructively for at least a year without civility issues, and then perhaps your third RFA will not be seen as disruptive. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Bwilkin's proposal.-<font color="#BA181F">Spaceman <font t thcolor="#2B18BA">Spiff  16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, although I don't think mentorship is necessary because I don't think it will be useful. Judging by my reading of the "vetting" page, Bwilkins is as patient and knowledgeable as any mentor anyone could hope for, and WGB is not really doing anything other than throwing suggestions back in Bwilkins' face. All in all, the impression I have is a user that cannot be mentored or changed; all we can hope for is to corral him into what areas of the project he is capable of participating in (article-writing, apparently) and keep the others (RFA particularly) off-limits. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? I don't understand this. I am not doing anything wrong. SighWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support although I also have doubts about the value of mentoring. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I think by now WGB thinks I am siding with him. I'd like to make it clear I am not, but I do not think you deserve to be blocked, as long as you remain sincere.  ceran  thor 16:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I can still use RFA right?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You try starting another RFA in less than 6 months and this will all start up again.  I'm sure it was nothing like your intention, but in the course of attempting to be an admin, you have made yourself look as if you are a disruptive git. You need to accept that this happened, even though you didn't intend it to happen.  It is within your control to stop it happening again, but only if you accept that it was your actions (however unintentionally) that caused the effect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note however, WGB, that if you agree to condition number 2, you cannot participate in anyway at RfA. Once the time has elapsed, you can contribute in a meaningful way (i.e. no more "if I can't be an admin, you can't" or other point-y contributions) then you would be welcome to do so - but your !vote needs to be based on an objective evaluation of the candidate, not a subjective one. Also, as Elen of the Roads says, you would be well-advised to not even consider an RfA (see the message I have left on your user talk page on this subject) -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Wiki Greek has learned his lesson, and I think this thread literally scared him into realizing what is at stake. I do believe that you have changed, and despite our prior interactions, I believe that you will someday be a good editor, but it might just take longer than usual. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. (ec) Perhaps this will allow WGB to find a way to make changes in how he interacts with others so he doesn't come of as always saying, "Who? Me?" when confronted with a behavioral issue. I really do believe that this may be a cultural thing, as well as not having as complete a command of English as would a native speaker. These are issues which can be worked through, and I believe this process would be the best way to do so. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can support this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, but number 2 ought to be extended to a year. The second RfA and "I am planning on trying again in a few months. I should pass the next time" prove that the guy will watch the clock and dive in as soon as he can. I wouldn't stretch out an RfA ban to indef, but definitely a lot longer than 30 days. <font color="#339933" face="Garamond">Şłџğģő 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A year? No. 30 days is is very severe for anything I did wrong as it is. One year would be ridiculous and over the top.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support To WGB, what I can say is, I don't see any plausable way that you would succeed in an RfA for the whole of 2010.  You seem too eager to get the tools for the wrong reasons, and you don't seem to know when you're beat.  I can tell you now, the only way to get a successful RfA in the time you say you want to is to accept this proposal for the ban (which, by the way, doesn't mean you'll get blocked, it just means that you will get blocked if you insist on editing your banned topic), and amaze everyone by resolving a lot of disputes, and show that you can use the tools responsibly.  However, looking back at your previous comments, that seems impossible for you to do.--Iner22 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Since the editor appears to regret some of his actions (or at the very least was acting quite unintentionally), then I will endorse these conditions. Although, I'd rather not see the user at RFA for at least 2 months. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support We gain by assuming good faith. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is good for all involved, with the caveat that the mentoring is unlikely to wok and will be a problem. RP459 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait wut? - Just because he decided to pick me out of the 20 or so people who opposed his RFA, doesn't mean that mediation will do shit. However I do support the rest of this proposal. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#090">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">ark  // 19:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFC/U has to go through process to be certified. I think the suggestion above is simply an assumption of good faith, that WGB is acting in good faith in claiming he has a dispute with you. Therefore, if he has a legitimate dispute with you, he's been officially alerted to the proper procedure for starting dispute resolution. You, on the other hand, also get to decide whether or not you have a dispute with him. I'm guessing ignoring it on your part is sufficient. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   19:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Coffee: (ec) He probably happened to come across one other user who criticized you for one thing sometime in the past. Petty editors like this tend to focus their efforts on admins who they think, for whatever reason, have chinks in their armor. It's happened to me, too. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @IP69: That's true. WGB is always welcome to file an RFC/U, but I doubt anyone would certify it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have not suggested that there is anything in an RFC/U that would actually be certified, simply that if WGB has enough of an issue, he needs to fish or cut bait permanently ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems like a reasonable compromise to an unfortunate situation. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A reasonable, peaceful solution. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; in fact, I'd favor this over just the space-ban. — Jeremy  ( v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!! ) 21:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Resounding oppose—I don't know if anyone's properly looked over WGB's behaviour during the last ANI thread about a week ago, but the fact that he repeatedly did this sort of thing both on his talkpage and ANI (and then tried to blame those edits on Ryulong and me!), and the fact that he returned to rampant disruption immediately after his last block ended, and his painfully disingenuous attitude, I don't think we need to give him any more of our time. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► consulate ─╢ 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one's disputing that he did some assholish stuff before his block. But several editors above have expressed that they don't think he's been "rampantly disruptive" since: his second RFA may have just been stupid, not malicious, and the same goes for his canvassing. Personally I don't have any desire to give him even the time of day, but there seems to be a strong consensus above that he can be useful if kept away from project spaces (or at least RFA). (And hopefully he can be kept away from users in general...it seems he's fine as long as he sticks to editing basketball articles and not trying to interact with people.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm far from WGB's fan, but unless specific diffs can be provided to show "rampant disruption", I fail to see why this user should be blocked. Yes, he was a silly person last week - that is why he got the week's block. Yes, he was a silly person by going for a 2nd RfA. Yes, he keeps interrupting the discussions here with his "I don't understand why this is happening" pleas. Yes, he finds it hard to work with other users (even those who are trying to help him). However, I don't see anything that is rampant disruption - just the acts of an annoyed user. Obviously, I may have missed some things when I've looked at his contributions since the block expired - in which case, I welcome diffs showing this. If sufficient evidence is shown, I am quite willing to change from support to oppose (although I note that the editor/admin with whom WGB says they have the biggest problem - Coffee - is willing to accept most of the suggested terms). Otherwise, I will AGF on this one - just keep WGB away from RfA (and preferably other interaction with editors). -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 22:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider the RfA, the comment on Ironholds' RfA, the constant disingenuosity [?] in interrupting this discussion and almost surreal canvassing of every 'crat on the site, to be rampant disruption. I can see no genuinely honest and innocent reason for it, particularly coupled with the pre-block behaviour (which doesn't automatically get wiped off the record once the user returns to editing). <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► inspectorate ─╢ 22:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with PhantomSteve. He did some stupid things a week and a half ago... but that was before his block. As I've said above when I changed my vote from an indef block to, well, nothing, I noticed no blatant disruption... Just the acts of a frustrated user, who may have been subjected to heated comments that were the result of his previous actions. But I see no reason to subject him to a sort of double jeopardy, being "prosecuted" twice for the same thing... he just needs to be lead away from the project space for a while. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#069>The <font color=#077>T <font color=#086>hi <font color=#095>ng <font color=#193>H <font color=#585>a <font color=#777>p <font color=#A57>p <font color=#B44>y <font color=#D11>New Year! 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of trying to craft a Rube Goldberg-system to deal with one user, I'd suggest that we keep it simple, give him some space, and stop reacting at length to his every provocation. By now the choices should be clear to WGB: either he resumes his pre-RFA activities, in which case he is most welcome here; or he restarts his post-RFA disruption, in which case he gets reverted, blocked, or banned (in that order). We too should move on, and desist from such lengthy debates - which only aggravate the disruption caused by his conduct. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 Someone should copy Abecedare's comment onto WGB's talk page and then we can all move on. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's essentially what BWilkins is suggesting. The easiest way to move on is to close this as a supported agreement, rather than suggest and invited discussion on alternatives. Sometimes just going with the current flow is fastest. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   05:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  05:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good idea, and better than the ban. Although I think the RfA restriction should be for a longer period, we could go with this. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm with Chamal, I think the RFA restriction should be for longer, perhaps 90 days. Other disruption is likely to lead to more blocking or banning, though, so it might be moot. tedder (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I can go back to RFA soon then? In 29 days now? And I can apply for admin again when? In 3 months or in 6 months?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "And I can apply for admin again when?" is not a good question to be asking. A better one would be "How long should I wait before applying for adminship again?" to make sure that a third RFA is successful. You should wait at least a year. --Rschen7754 09:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rschen. Given this mess we have gone through, you might wish to wait a little longer to reapply. 6 months at least, but I would recommend 9 or more. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two years after this User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 years? No. I feel making me wait more than 6 months is excessive and wrong. I will not agree to 2 years.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to agree, I expect that if you apply to become an admin in 6 months, you will fail. Simple as that. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► stannator ─╢ 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no guarantee that after 6 months another RfA will fail. However, before that it is very much unlikely that it will succeed. Different editors have different standards, and there is no single voice to deny you adminship. You might stand a chance in 6 to 12 months. Before that, you will most likely fail. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will apply in 6 months. Start of September.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you do that, I would like that you learn from this experience, from your failed first RfA, so you can address the concerns raised by those who !voted oppose. Mainly, the tone in which the questions were answered. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WGB, I would strongly suggest that you read and comprehend the message I left on your talk page here about RfA matters. I would also 'strongly advise you to read the other advice on your talk page from editors whose advice I personally would respect. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidently, the fact that you seem to be saying that you will be clock-watching would appear to indicate that you think adminship is a big deal and that you see it as a goal to achieve, a hat to wear. This is not the idea behind adminship. It is not a power position, it is in fact WP:NOBIGDEAL. As I said on your talk page, stick with what you are good at: article-writing. This is your strength so I would suggest that you concentrate on this. No one here has said (or hinted) that if you apply in 6 months time, you will succeed at an RfA. They have said that 6-12 months is the minimum period before you would have any hope at all, if you improve in the suggested areas. No everyone is suitable for adminship - some people are genuinely more useful in their role as editors - and I think you could be one of those -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do better for the next 6 months. I just want to be an admin to help the site. That is all. I have no ulterior motives.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the replies to this thread, I don't see WGB understanding why we do not want him to edit anything regarding the adminship process. I call for a six month ban from WP:RFA and an additional three month ban from self nominating (allowing him to be involved with the RFA process for a period of time before he self noms again). If during that three month grace period someone decides to nom him (asking someone to nominate him during this grace period obviously will not fly), then we should expect that to go better than these two self noms in a two week period. I do not think anything regarding Coffee's behavior should be done (as he/she has done nothing except be a target to WGB's issues) and mentorship will only go so far.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this amendment to the proposal -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NO. This is ridiculous once again. 6 months ban from RFA? 9 months before I can apply again? Why? I can't take this anymore. I'm done. Forget wikipedia this is so unfair and cruel.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting angry again. That's not going to help you at all, and will probably get you into even more trouble. You have already been told why. Read the comments on this thread and the previous one about you, and also the comments left on your talk page by several editors. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * STOP IT. I am not getting angry - I am upset. 30 days voluntary away from RFA and if I wanted to apply again for admin in 6 months I could. That was the decision. Please do not do this to me banning me for 6 months and 9 months. This is very egregious and unfair. I was just making sure about the 30 days and 6 months and now people are being mean to me again for no reason.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6 months seem a reasonable amount of time to me. He can show to have learned behavioral guidelines, and a new, objective evaluation can be performed. I would also recomment that someone from WikiProject_User_Rehab assisted in his mentorship. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  10:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Why are you doing this now? 30 days voluntary away from RFA. 6 months ban is so mean and unfair. Look it was ryulong that suggested it. He was being very mean and rude to me before and he kept harassing me at my talk page before. After I was banned he came to my talk page and kept harassing me. He hates me. He's just trying to turn everyone against me. Please just the 30 days voluntary away from RFA. I am sorry. I already apologized for everything. OK?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WGB - can I ask why you are so determined to apply for adminship again so quickly? Most editors would probably want to leave it a year after 2 quickly-failed RfAs to show that they are not power-hungry and for there to be plenty of proof that they have improved in the areas which were suggested. If you want adminship as a status symbol, or for power, then you do not understand the point of adminship. It is a stressful position (from what I have seen!), and if anything you get less respect than as a quality editor, as you have people complaining about the things you do. So I ask again, why do you appear so desperate to be an admin? -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained it when I applied the first time. The site is rapidly losing good contributors and needs a lot of help. It is greatly on the decline. I just want to help. That is all. I only have good intentions and I am really getting frustrated and dismayed and disillusioned with how I am forced to defend my every action here over and over.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The original proposal was to ban you permanently from the project space or even from the entire site. Maybe you should consider that before you start complaining at every alternative suggested to you. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very sad again now. I really feel I need to just leave the site. I can't take being treated so meanly like this by others for no reason. Please I will ask you one last time have a heart and do not punish me further. That is all I ask.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of these comments and the one made to my talk page just further prove my point. In one month, WGB will not be emotionally mature enough to be involved with the adminship process (he's barely emotionally mature enough to contribute to this discussion). Being banned from contributing to WP:RFA for six months and then being banned from self nomming for 3 months after that will at least give him nine months to realize that this is just a website on the Internet and adminship is not a big deal.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support BWilkins incredibly reasonable proposal but with a longer exclusion from RFA per Chamal and Ryulong. However WGB must understand that this will only work if he enters his mentorship with an open-mind regarding the (in)appropriateness of his recent behaviour and a willingness to embrace the change necessary to ensure we see no repeat performance. Nancy  talk  10:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Nancy just the 30 days voluntary and nothing more. Please. I am begging you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment It is quite clear from all of the above that this user simply does not get it and never will. There's no need to pamper him. Allow him edit basketball articles if you like, and just block him if he screws with someone else's RFA. Although, FWIW, if he ever nominates himself for adminship again I would say let it go the full week in spite of SNOW...perhaps getting the inevitable 100 opposes would actually help him get the message that he has been unable to understand so far.

A question for Wiki Greek Basketball
You have made several comments above, including ''Why? I don't understand this. I am not doing anything wrong. SighWiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) and 30 days is is very severe for anything I did wrong as it is. One year would be ridiculous and over the top.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)''

This does not indicate that you realise that you have done anything wrong.

If I am incorrect in this assessment, could you reply to this simple question: In the eyes of the community (as represented here), what have you done that was wrong?
 * A.:I can't answer because according to some everything I do is wrong. No matter what they are not satisfied. They are demanding still I be gone for 6 to 9 months. So all I can say is in the eyes of many of them I do everything wrong and I am hopeless forever. I don't know what else to say.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting that you "be gone for 6 to 9 months", merely that you stay away from RfA for that time. Please try actually reading what is written here by others, as then you might realise that it isn't quite as bad as you seem to think it is. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not right. I do not deserve to be banned from RFA for 6 to 9 months. That is vicious and very, very extreme and now everyone hates me. I deserve to be allowed to use RFA. No way should I be banned from there for 6 to 9 months and you know that I did nothing to deserve such an extreme punishment.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. You really do. And if you can't see that, it goes some way towards proving that point. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A further question:

Does this edit to your user page indicate that you no longer have an interest in being an admin?
 * I am hurt and sad and confused. I just wish to remain here and not be banned. I am SORRY. I regret wanting to help the site and be an admin. I only wished to help the site more and to do this with donation in effort to admin to help with much vandalism here. But this has become a very big mistake and now I am harassed and ridiculed and threatened by many here. I am also constantly told I will be blocked, banned, restricted and everything. I just cannot believe how I have been treated here. I am SORRY I had the audacity to apply for admin. I just wish to not be further punished for this mistake (after already I was blocked for a week) and for all of you that hate me to please leave me alone.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you still don't understand even the simplest of things about this site. Being banned from RFA does not mean you can't "remain here".
 * And you keep insisting that you're being "further punished" and "ridiculed" for what you did before. No, you're being punished and ridiculed for your continued poor behavior and denseness. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very rude to me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone here hates you - although you have been a bit of a pain in the bum at the moment! Anyone can apply to be an admin, but sometimes it's wise to say "OK, i've got 3% support and 88% opposes... perhaps now's not the time". You didn't do that, and then you try again and are then surprised when you don't get a lot of support? In your first RfA, you claimed to have a very high IQ: may I suggest that you apply that intelligence, and read and understand what people have given as the problems they see with you. Having a high IQ is no use if you can't apply common sense! -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another question: if you were to apply in the future to be an admin, at what %age oppose (or how many actual opposes) would you feel that the community wouldn't want you to be an admin? Would it be when you have 99.9% oppose? When you had 100 opposes? 200? 500? Because if either of the last two RfAs had run for the entire week, I predict that you would have ended up with perhaps a couple of supports, and 200+ opposes. Do you really want to be subjected to this? You are moaning about the fact that people are suggesting that you have a short topic ban from RfA - how would you cope with hundreds of editors criticising you? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you would set a new record for the number of Wikipedians agreeing (which at the moment is the 299 support which Dihydrogen Monoxide's 5th RfA had) - only you would have them as opposes instead of supports. If this would to have happened, it would probably pretty much guarantee that no future RfAs would ever be successful - at least if you follow our suggestions here, there is a chance that at some time in the future, you could possibly be considered for adminship. Now, again, I'm going to suggest that you respond to some of the advice on your talk page, as you seem to be ignoring it. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How can I even know what the result will be? It is to be for 7 days and my requests were closed within mere hours. You seem to be in to predicting the future, you and many others here. I have a PHD in such matters and I assure you that it is not that easy. For example I was never given the chance to respond to questions because every time my RFA was closed immediate when someone asked a question. But I see from you and others over and over you complain and ridicule me about how "you didn't answer questions". Do you not even see how unfair this sort of ridicule is? It is like all of you see everything in the world only from your own little world and existence. And yes I do feel that many people here hate me. I believe this and it makes me sad. Also 6 to 9 months ban is not "short". It is very excessive for just making requests for admin.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "How can we you know what the result would be"? Because you have lost the respect of the community and no serious editor here would support you. If you watched RfAs in the past, you would know how RfAs for editors like you always turn out. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have a doctorate in what? Predicting the future? Gaining the trust of the Wikipedia community? Causing large-scale disruption over a period of weeks? What? <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 14:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 3 mandatory questions which you answered were not answered to the satisfaction of the editors who !voted. Let me give you a suggestion: I put some "RfA-like" questions on your talk page - answer those, come back here and let us know that they are answered. Show us what you would have said if you had had the time to answer them. For the benefit of other editors, the link is User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 2 (to avoid clogging the tubes)
Seeing his recent contributions, he has resumed his much welcomed basketball contributions, so it is likely that he will not pursue adminship anymore. Not soon anyway. Should we call it a day? > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  12:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I see a consensus of "Support", with the following provisos:


 * 1) WGB says the altercation with Coffee is already "over"
 * 2) A variety of different timeframes proposed from 30 days to a year.  No interactions on RfA for 30 days seems to have the greatest support, and the link above does seem to suggest he will not try RfA again.
 * 3) Although he is still recommended to find a mentor, there are concerns it will be useless.
 * 4) As already noted, blocks/bans may still be required should behavior escalate again.
 * Based on this, I'd say it's approved and let's move on. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and we go through this rigmarole in February when he decides to renominate himself again. We should at least install a standard ban from self nominations.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 13:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you hounding me like this? Please accept that most people feel what you ask is too extreme and that your own grudge against me is not what everyone else feels.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal and there is no grudge against you. In fact, no one who has commented here has said my suggestion is extreme in any sense of the word. Everyone is just saying "Maybe he gets the point" because you consistently stop editing here and continue writing about basketball players. But then you come right back and start complaining that several users are in some sort of cahoots to prevent you from editing Wikipedia. Maybe, some day, someone will see the work you do and suggest that you become an administrator. Nominating yourself is not going to work when you have these extreme emotional responses to rejection.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that next time he nominates himself we should let it run the full 7 days so he can see how much the community opposes it...then maybe he'll give up this thought that there's some cabal keeping him from adminship, and figure out that the community simply doesn't trust him and doesn't want him.
 * The only issue is if he starts disrupting other peoples' RfAs out of bitterness, as he has done before. If he does that, he should be blocked immediately (and that's why we need some kind of formal ban--so that there's grounds to block him next time it becomes necessary). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just re-open my 2nd RFA? I do not understand still why I was not given the full week either time on my two RFAs. This is very unfair itself as many other users get this even after failing multiple times. And I see users getting approved with less contributions and less time in the site than me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Formal ban? Why? Please stop this and just leave me alone. I have done everything asked of me and you still hold a grudge?Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've "done everything asked", except actually understanding what people are telling you, and agreeing not to chase your impossible admin dream. As long as you keep insisting that you must become an admin within 30 days (or however long), people will need to keep some measures in place so you don't disrupt the project as you have done repeatedly. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep twisting and skewing everything? I hope you never get put of for a ban because the way you talk about others is very sad. You must have made many enemies. I am not demanding to be an admin and I said nothing about 30 days. I said ONLY that I want to be an admin someday if possible. And it is not an impossible dream. You are so quick to judge me and to criticize me and yet you talk like that to me? Look in the mirror yourself. And yes I have done EVERYTHING asked of me. EVERYTHING. And STILL some of you are demanding a 6 month to 9 month ban of me. Excuse me but this is so out of line and rude and absurd.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WGB, instead of commenting here, may I suggest that you carefully read the comments on your talk page and respond to them. Several editors have given you advice, which I think you should read and respond to — even if it's to tell us to leave you alone! Stop commenting here (although you could answer the two questions above - here) and concentrate on responding to comments on your talk page and on editing the basketball articles, which you seem to be good at. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To end this - I can't even label what it is - I really would favour a reopening of their second RfA. Let it run its full course and then after seven days they will hopefully realize that the speedy closure of it was not punitive, but preventive. Sometimes people need to see something to understand it. Phoe   talk   15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WGB, please read WP:SNOW, WP:NOTNOW and WP:IAR (and the related essays on IAR). Early closure was not out of the line. There is no point going on a discussion when the result is impossible to overturn. And there is also no point on going on this one. First Coffee harassed them, and then Ryulong...I am wondering where in the line I stand. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How much longer will I be subjected to this torture?
I can't take much more of all this ridicule, criticism, bashing, all of this meanness directed towards me. All of the vitriol and hatred some here have for me is overwhelming and difficult to deal with. I am depressed and sad over this. I need to know how much longer I will be subjected to all of this. So please if anyone knows tell me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen no vitriol nor hatred but to answer your main question, this thread will probably continue to be active for as long as you keep feeding it. If you back away, return to your sterling article work and stop stoking the fire then things will die down very quickly. Best, Nancy  talk  14:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But they want me banned from RFA for 6-9 months.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheese and rice... enough! 24 hours ago they wanted you banned from Wikipedia forever.  Take the freedom you suddenly now have and work on your specialty: articles.  I'm starting to think you're 10 years old the way you're sulking!  Everything you are saying now will be used against you in any RFA ... so STOP!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take the 6-9 months RFA ban? If you then feel that in one month or one week you want to re-apply then you can ask for the block/ban to be lifted in a new thread, (or ask some uninvolved admins for their input/coaching).
 * Feeding this thread will not help your case, take the ban and either serve it or appeal it when you feel you are ready to re-apply. Surely you are not planning to apply for a short while, so why not let all this die down a little and ask for the ban to be lifted at a later stage? FFMG (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WGB, as we have said numerous times: the "torture" will end the moment you stop whining and begging. You are the one subjecting yourself to this, you are the one responding to everyone's comments. You always have the ability to just ignore this page, forget about RfA, and get on with your other wiki activities. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's my two cents, WGB. (I stole the story from someone a lot smarter than I am.)  When you go to a banquet, sit at the foot of the table, then if the host wants you to move to the front you are honored.  If you go to the banquet and sit at the front, and the host wants someone else to sit there, you are embarrassed when you're asked to move.  You're trying to sit at the head of the table, WGB, and the hosts keep telling you to move.  But you're bringing your embarrassment on yourself.  Why don't you follow their advice and be a great article editor for a time?  Then, when they think you're ready, it will be an honor when they ask you to sit up front.  (Taivo (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

If ridicule, criticism, bashing, and meanness bother you then you don't want to be an admin, we get piles of that stuff just for doing our job. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's just close this as the proposal by BWilkins accepted and move ON! It's clear to everyone what will happen within the next week or so, so further discussions will be completely moot. Time to let this go. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's very likely that a new discussion is going to come up pretty soon, let's not spend more time on this now. Mark this as resolved in favor of Bwilkins's proposal. Enjoy your participation at the Wikicup or Bacon Challenge until then. - Spaceman  Spiff  18:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also concur. Let's all MOVE ON. WGB, go back to the mainspace, keep your head down for a few months and I would advise you to stay away from RfA. Everyone else, leave him alone for a while- let him do what he does best (editing the mainspace- which is what we're all here for!) and, again, MOVE ON. If WGB (much as I condemn his other actions) was banned or blocked, we would loose a valuable and competent content editor. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball
*sigh* Ok, this one hurts to bring forward, as I worked very hard to bring forth a positive solution. Based on this long discussion the community agreed that WGB was prohibited from interacting at WP:RFA for a minimum of 30 days. Some had suggested longer, but the community decided to stick with 30. This was clearly all interactions due to some WP:POINTy votes in the past.

While heading over to vote, I noticed this vote and this one as well as an RFB vote. While admittedly more positive than previous pointiness, this is in direct violation of his ban from RFA.

I politely reminded him, and for that I received this surprising case of "I don't get it". When I showed him the link back to the discussion that he himself was involved in, I was threatened with "being reported".

My WP:AGF meter has run out in this case, and I leave this in y'all's hands to deal with as you see fit. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like pretty clear consensus for a ban, and this seems like straightforward ban evasion. The denial of the existence of the ban is the most concerning part, unless there was some subsequent decision to overturn that consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NEWS FLASH I was NOT banned. I will not tolerate a false complaint being filed against me, nor will I tolerate people making comments about me that I was banned, when I was not. If I have to file against everyone who does so I will. I was not banned so I strongly suggest that you do not make the statement again that I was. You just falsely accused me of "ban evasion" and I am not taking this anymore from other users here. If you insult me, make false accusations against me, whatever i will file a grievance on you.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While you are evidently unhappy about the outcome of that discussion, consensus is quite clear. Unless there was some subsequent decision to overturn that consensus, you are banned from RfA for a period of 30 days. Moreover, in accordance with Ban, the period of that ban is reset after evasion, which means that the 30 days starts from your last edit to RfA. Additional sanctions may include blocking, and any comments you make at RfA may be discounted. You are welcome to file a grievance against me if you feel that my behavior is inappropriate (Dispute resolution contains some recommended fora), but please be advised that aggressive behavior such as this, which you placed after the above, is inappropriate. You cannot stifle criticism or discussion by issuing threats. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To prevent continuing dispruption by this editor I have issued an indefinite block. If they will agree to the terms of the agreed proposal and promise to stop threatening other editors, then I personally would not oppose an unblock. However I suspect that this may now have passed the limit of other editors' patience. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiGreekBasketball [section break]
I was NOT banned from RFA and that was the final decision. Now this user is trying to harass me and get me banned for a phantom violation. If he lets this go I will not file a complaint against him, but if not I will definitely do so. I know for a fact that filing false reports against others is not allowed.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking over the discussion, I'd say there was indeed overwhelming support to ban you from RfA - the one or two "oppose" votes were insignificant, and, moreover, called for even stricter measures. WP:BURO applies - you won't get an official paper with the Great Seal signed by Jimbo himself. Please stick to the ban and avoid further trouble. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

concerning as per WP:SUICIDE ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if simply having him admit his mistakes and adhere to the ban is enough for an unblock. Do we really need someone around who, at the least bit of adversity, lashes out to everyone and contemplates slitting his wrists? This editor is far more troublesome than a simple case of ban evasion.--Atlan (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC)Per WP:SUICIDE, a checkuser should be performed to the account for the IP, the IP gotten, a WhoIS search done and the local police called. The police has said they would rather take a million calls and nothing happen, then no one call one time and something actually happen.  If this person is in the US and the admin wishes to give me the IP information in private (via email) I will make the police call. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've emailed you the IP. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he may be in Greece. (ETA: No, I'm wrong. He's from Greece; he says on his userpage that he is in the US now.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I left him a note directing him to one of the national suicide hotlines and have had a checkuser (who turned a CU down) place a note on the checkuser mailing list for second opinion. I will wait and see what happens with that.  I would rather be safe than sorry. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser came through, IP found, police called, will update when I have more. Should mark as resolved on this section for now. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to give a final update on the suicide threat portion of this discussion. As typical in some cases, I never received a callback from the police to know if the person is OK or not.  I am hoping he is OK.  If I learn anymore, I will be sure to let you all know. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 06:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the message Bwilkins left him. I was in the process of writing him a similar (but typically overly wordy :)) note when I got the edit conflict with his subsequent. But there's something to what you say, Atlan. The real problem here seems to be not the ban evasion, but an inability to work with others. (I don't recall having encountered this user before today, but I've read over the last ANI discussion.) I don't think this is impossible to overcome, but it requires something more than an acknowledgment of a ban and a willingness to abide by it. Somehow, he needs to drop the battlefield mentality, because that way lies serious disruption. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am 100% disengaging from the user. Although my original proposal suggested a mentor, it was stated that it would have no obvious purpose so nobody picked up the baton. Regardless, I have kept his talkpage in my watchlist, and tried a few times to give him gentle nudges in the right direction. Based on the posts on my talkpage before his block, rather than being his "angel" I am his "enemy". There's no need for me to do any bear-poking here, and I'm not sure that much can be done to assist this editor. I will of course answer any questions that anyone has from me, but I'll take no further active role with him. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indef block. It's been a long time coming... <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indef block with a little reluctance (but a lot less reluctance than in the previous ANI discussion). I feel that I have been as helpful to this user as I can be, and to be honest, my final message on their talk page is a bit sarcastic (suggesting that they create their own wiki, so that they can be an admin like they really want to be). Not too surprisingly, they didn't like that! Those of you who know me will know that that's the closest I've ever come to being rude - but this editor has exhausted my patience. I would be sorry to see this user's useful edits cease, but I feel that this editor cannot work within this community. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that I do not support an infinite block - just until they have shown that they both understand the concerns of the community and have shown that they understand that what they have done is wrong, and shown some remorse for this. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support an indef. block I've been watching this through both ANI reports and I hoped the first one resolved the issue.  Unfortunately it didn't so this editor needs a force break for awhile to let them think through things more clearly.  I also support contacting someone about the threat to his own life.  This is just too emotional for this editor at least at this time.  I think the editors who tried to reach out and help have tried wonderfully to be patient.  Maybe in a month or two the editor maybe willing to listen to all the good advice they have been given.  It's sad to come to this, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indef block User clearly lacks the social WP:competence to participate in any part of this project other than mainspace, and despite clear warnings he hasn't gotten the message yet. Trying to baby and nurture him has been an unnecessary energy drain on countless editors; we need to just end this now. His mainspace contributions are good, but not enough to justify letting him behave like this. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support indefinite block per above. Maybe he'll come back and become productive, but he certainly isn't one right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I wondered about his edit count: is this followed by this immediately followed by this all within 2 minutes really "productive" or merely a padding of one's edit count? This is his typical pattern of activity - which explains both the vast number of edits and his focus on such edit count on his Userpage.  Not as productive as one might think. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like another case of WP:Editcountitis. Then again my case is probably worse than his, although reverts and warnings are probably more productive than what looks like a null edit in the second link you posted. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#05C>Th <font color=#07A>e T <font color=#098>hi <font color=#0B6>ng <font color=#F70>Ed <font color=F60>it <font color=#F50>or <font color=#F40>Rev <font color=F20>iew 15:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block *Sigh*... this again? I tried to help you out, but apparently it didn't exactly work out. I'm sorry WGB, but there is a time when even my patience runs out, and this is it. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#05C>Th <font color=#07A>e T <font color=#098>hi <font color=#0B6>ng <font color=#F70>Ed <font color=F60>it <font color=#F50>or <font color=#F40>Rev <font color=F20>iew 15:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block It doesn't look as though it is possible to work/reason with this user. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support; while we are losing a great writer on basketball player biographies, we are getting rid of someone who has become way too obsessed with the meta processes and fails to realize that it's no big deal.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: The guy just wants attention. We cannot accept disruption just because of his attention needs. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  16:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support and I'm fully protecting their talk page per WP:SUICIDE. Let's all move on. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  16:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support. WGB has had plenty of offers of help and plenty of chances to help himself and, frankly, I feel some editors may be a little too quick to condemn him and request an indef block, but, despite those chances, he's made little effort to cease his disruption to the project. He had a last chance and he blew it. That said, he should be allowed to appeal the block in a bare minimum of 3 months and there should be a review if he indicates willingness to start contributing constructively again. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   16:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Support per Ryulong. I only saw him briefly at his RFA, but his behavior there seemed comparable to what's being described here. It's saddening to see a user leave Wikipedia, but perhaps this is for the best. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. per above.  User has had more than enough chances.  -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here He is indef blocked, and with the so far unanimous support for that block it seems unlikely any admin will unblock him anytime soon. If he requests unblock in a few months we can re-visit this then. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indefinite block, definitely. Editor is disruptive. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Rights
Apparently the account still has autoreviewer status. Given the above, is it necessary to remain?— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters, but I removed the autoreviewer right. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Email received from WGB
I received an e--mail from WGB via Wikipedia Email, which I present here with no further comment

My user name is Wiki Greek Basketball. I am banned from the site and I am not allowed to edit my user talk page. I am very sorry for any trouble I caused and I just want to resume editing articles on the site. I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I would very much like to be able to continue to do so. I apologize for any disruptions I caused and I would like to be allowed to return to my article editing.

If someone could help me with the rules of the site I would really appreciate it. I am having a very hard time understanding all of the rules of the site and it is getting very confusing for me. I have had some users be rude and mean to me and I do not know how to solve this and no one ever helps me with it as I do not know how to properly handle that problem - I do not understand all the site rules as they are too confusing and I need someone to help me with that. I just want to be able to edit articles and do contributing to the site, which I very much enjoy. I am not wanting to and never have intended to cause any problems, I just seem to be making some mistakes that I don't realize I am making and that is very frustrating for me.

Several of your admin seem to follow everything I do and I do not know every detail of every rule and I need help with this, but instead I only get banned and no one helps me, instead they just barrage me with a list of site violations I am supposedly making and I get more confused and frustrated and still no one helps me. They say that it is help, but it is not, it is just furthering my confusion and frustration. All I want is to be able to help the site main space. Wikipedia is my favorite website and helping the site is one of my favorite hobbies/activities. Please do not take this away from me.

I have contributed a lot to the site as I have written over 100 articles. Please do not take this ability away from me. I am very sorry about everything that has happened and I just wish that someone can find it in their heart to show mercy on me and to allow me another chance. I am very sorry for everything and just so you know, I truly do feel very, very terrible and it makes me feel ashamed and awful at any disruption and problems I caused at Wikipedia. It is a wonderful website as it is the best site on the internet and one of the greatest creations ever of people. I am very upset and disappointed in myself that I have caused any problems or harm to such a wonderful site, which I really do love dearly.

I promise with complete sincerity and honesty that I will do everything in my personal power to not cause any problems or issues on the site if you would kindly please allow me to return to it. If you can help me with learning everything about the site and its rules I will appreciate that and will try my best to do so because I am very upset at being banned from my favorite site and I do not ever want it to happen again and I do not want this to be the way it is.

I will just say that in closing I am not sure what to say in this message and I am not sure if this is a proper email message or if I am further breaking site rules. I hope not, and I am not trying to cause any problems by sending this message. Also, I think I am having some problems understanding what people say to me because of dialect differences and this is confusing me a little bit. So I just wanted to explain that I was not intending to be mean and rude to others, but unfortunately I think it came out that way, and for that I am very sorry and I feel very bad about it. I do not know what else to say other than once again I am very sorry for everything. Even if you do not find it in your hearts to allow me back to the site, please at least accept my apology and know that it is sincere and please if you can pass this apology on to anyone that I caused problems for at the site. I would have written the apology to some, but I cannot because I am banned, so if you could please do so for me.

If you could please put this on my user talk page or something, if that is OK? I have already written a long message and I do not want to take up any more of your time. So I just hope that you understand how bad I feel and how much I am sincere. Please consider giving me a chance.

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He has sent me the email as well... this is most likely a boilerplate message like the ones he was posting a week ago. Perhaps it would be prudent to disable his email access as well. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#05C>Th <font color=#07A>e T <font color=#098>hi <font color=#0B6>ng <font color=#F70>Ed <font color=F60>it <font color=#F50>or <font color=#F40>Rev <font color=F20>iew 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I got it too ... how about someone show him the standard offer, warn against socking while banned, and have him read up on things in the meantime. I personally will not engage him ATM for fear of pushing the wrong buttons. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I declined to put it on his talk page, but did forward it for review at unblock-en-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just sent this reply via Wikipedia E-mail User:

I have placed a copy of the message which you sent me at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki_Greek_Basketball

The only comment I will make is that you are not banned - you are "blocked".

A block means that you cannot edit on the site at all (usually this excludes your own user talk page, but the current block means that you cannot edit that either).

A ban would mean that you are not allowed to edit specific areas of Wikipedia.

Let me explain what would be required for the community to consider lifting the block:

1. You will need to explain what you did which was wrong.

2. You will need to promise that you would not do the same thing again.

3. You will need to agree to a 30-day ban from contributing in any way at either Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship - this time to start when you are unblocked.

4. An acknowledgement that should you repeat the actions which caused you to be blocked (or to go against the ban at RfA/RfB edits), you realise that you will be indefinitely blocked again.

If you wish to communicate using the Wikipedia "E-mail user" facility, I am willing to post any mails you send directly onto the above-mentioned page.

However, other than being a go-between, I am not going to take any other part in this situation at this moment in time.

Regards,

Phantomsteve


 * Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the lack of a community consensus for what to do with a suicide threat. The above actions, locate IP and call police are 100% appropriate. In addition, I believe the user should be blocked with no possibility of parole, the user page be blocked from editing, and the user's e-mail rights taken away. Wikipedia is not a mental health facility. A user who threatens suicide on wikipedia should not be on wikipedia editing. We should not be posting and discussing their e-mails, getting their e-mails, replying to them via e-mail, posting on their user talk page, discussing anything. This is an area for mental health professionals. It's time to close all access from this account and to close this discussion. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IP69, the user page is already blocked from editing (apart from by admins). Where in policy does it say that someone threatening suicide should be "blocked with no possibility of parole" and that the user's e-mail rights should be taken away? I am not an apologist for WGB, but as e-mail is in fact the only way that WGB can communicate, and he has said that Wikipedia is important to him, surely denying him their use might actually have the reverse effect to what you seem to think it would have - it would drive him nearer to harming himself. If he wants to email me through Wikipedia, then I am OK with that - if the email is relevant to post here, I will; if it is not, I will not. If it gets too bad, and I get millions of e-mails from him (or someone else here does), then believe me, I'll be back here asking for his e-mail access to be revoked! If it doesn't get that bad, but I get bored of it, I can always add him to my "junk" filter, and never see their emails again - but I don't intend on doing that. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I got as far as when you said, "it could drive him nearer to harming himself," and stopped. Partly because I tend not to care and think he's attention-seeking, but mainly because Wikipedia is not a mental-health facility and we do not base our decisions on one person's possible physical wellbeing. He can't just hold us to ransom like that, it's absurd. Play for sympathy. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a postscript, before you ask: if I receive a suicide threat, then not only will I forward that to a CheckUser (who can then inform the local legal authorities), I will also stop accepting WGB's e-mails. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a post-postscript: if you are wondering why I am going the extra mile for someone whom I don't particularly think should ever be an admin, who I think should be working in areas of Wikipedia which involves no involvement with other editors - it's because his article work is good. If he wrote a load of old tosh, I'd not be getting involved at all. If WGB can carry on working on the articles about Greek basketball, without disrupting Wikipedia, I think they should be able to do that in the future, when the consensus of the community is that he is ready to do so. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the one who called the police in the suicide threat instance. I never received a call back to let me know if he was OK, which it seems he is.  This is sometimes typical of police departments who don't want to release any information on an active investigation.  I am glad that the user is OK, but I feel that he needs to take a relaxing breather from Wikipedia before coming back if it is causing him so much stress that he is contemplating suicide over being blocked from it. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia should have a policy of stop as soon as someone declares suicide. We're no more psychiatrists than we are lawyers, but we know to not play lawyer. Once you open this up, there is no way to stop the drama that will build around the game of being shrink/victim on wikipedia. Except the stakes are far more dangerous than being sued for at least one person. Wikipedia has no business allowing this game to be played anywhere, anytime on wikipedia. A policy to prevent it is the only thing. Please, Phantomsteve, don't continue. I won't. -- IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for interjecting here, but I just wanted to state my disagreement with IP on this opinion. I concurred with consensus above that WGB should be blocked, but blocking people just for making threats will just turn them into unrepentant vandals. There's no reason WGB or anyone else involved in such drama couldn't go down to another computer with a different non-proxy IP address and create a new account to create havoc with. The best path of action with those kinds of cries for attention are to ignore them. He and everyone else on here should be judged on their interactions with others, not their own personal needs. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As an editor who has threatened life's end a number of times, and being under an ArbCom thing to not do it again, it can be really hard to cooldown when the site does get to your head. I don't think blocking them solves anything in that regard. I've found that when I am in a really pissed mood with someone, I find an off-wiki place to vent, IRC for example. Now, my behavior ain't perfect and I will be undergoing some psych treatment later this winter, but please understand that cooling off with an indef block can make the situation worse, rather than better.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I kinda understand what Doc Quintana is saying, I don't think we should never ignore a cry for help. Some of these threats are just that threats, but in some cases they are down right serious.  In one instance I have helped with the user had the note written and was intent in going through with it.  That user was saved by the quick action of many.  That user is now receiving help last I heard.  I would rather call the police a hundred times and all be threats and nothing more, then not call one time and the person actually do harm to themselves.  I think we should abide by WP:SUICIDE, a policy "on the books" here and report any cry for help to that user's local police department.  They either get a stern talking to or the help they need, regardless they are alive and that is what matters. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mitch has hit it on the head, the best thing to do is vent elsewhere. It's almost like trolling, they're just looking for attention. The best way to help people like WGB is to stop feeding the beast that is eating them. And this website certainly can do that to you sometimes. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to email
Questions of suicide threats aside, the issue should still be what response to the email is appropriate. It definitely seems sincere, but it's also definitely off-wiki; I am hard-pressed to find any similar communication from WGB on-wiki, ever. I'm not saying the people aren't capable of changing, but a simple look through WGB's contributions outside article space shows a long-term pattern of doing things by his own set of rules. There's no need to find individual diffs of contacting admins and bureaucrats and threatening to report us; many of us who disagreed with anything WGB said were threatened in this way. But if you dig back, you can find things like this one from December 2008, which includes: ...I don't care...do NOT accuse me... and ends with But if you ever falsely accuse me again of going against site policy I will report you without hesitation. This is from over a year ago; it looks just like the recent spate of threats.

It is possible WGB is gaming the system by emailing only certain users. When the threats were to report people without hesitation, the emails went to people perceived to be in positions of high authority, such as admins and, later, bureaucrats. Now that an indefinite block has been put in place, the emails seem to be going to users perceived to be somewhat sympathetic to WGB. Not a bad strategy - I don't draw any implication from that alone, but what I notice is that WGB appears to be doing and writing those things which will have the greatest effect at any given time. So, rather than discuss whether or not basketball positions should be capitalized, he threatens to report editors who disagree with his own position. No discussion...just threats. When people tell him at RfA that he doesn't have the temperament for adminship, rather than listen and discuss the points, he becomes so argumentative that he winds up with a block and then applies again nearly immediately after the block expires. Then, when an indef block seems imminent, the suicide threat. Then, when talk page access is removed, a seemingly conciliatory message in an attempt to regain site access. Every instance seems to be designed to get a specific result in the moment. Not a one of them shows even the slightest knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works. There is some technical ability and some writing ability (although the use of the preview button would probably improve things), but it seems when the requirement to interact with other users crops up, problems invariably result. WGB doesn't seem to realize that for all his threats to "report" people, no sanction seems to have come against those individuals but rather only against him.

So what's the response? I am not 100% sure but I doubt the emails will stop until they are disabled or he's re-instated. I believe the email is 100% sincere, just as I believe the threats to report people were 100% sincere. The problem is that sincerity isn't necessarily enough; until and unless WGB understands how things work around here, it's unclear that we'll have an editor that can contribute outside of basketball articles. For a long time that seemed sufficient. If it is no longer sufficient...what to do with the disruption?

I think we can unblock for a trial period, and put very few, very uncomplicated restrictions, but enforce them without hesitation. WGB needs to understand that the wiki-lawyering, threats, cajoling, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior will result in an immediate block for a period of time known in advance, no talk page access, no email, no reprieve. If that can be managed for a period...two weeks, one month...pick something, we can move on to other things. If not, the block remains in place and we can move on to other things. Frank |  talk  12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've nicely established a pattern. Honestly, WP:OFFER needs to stick to this editor like glue.  I can sadly picture an RFC/U within 17 days of his eventual return. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, Frank. I also agree with your "trial unblocking" suggestion: Personally, I would suggest the following:


 * When he is unblocked, it is with the following conditions, which WGB must agree to before being unblocked:
 * WGB is banned from editing RfA or RfB for a period of 30 days from the time the block is lifted
 * WGB is further prohibited from starting a new RfA for a period of at least 3 months after the RfA ban has expired
 * WGB is to have an editing restriction listed at Editing restrictions, along the lines that should WGB engages in Wikilawyering, personal attacks (including threats and cajoling) or refusing to 'get the point' they will immediately be blocked for 2 weeks (in the first instance), 1 month (in the 2nd instance) and indefinitely (should a third instance occur).
 * Should WGB receive such a block, he will have no talk page access and no e-mail access for the duration of the block. Reworded below
 * If WGB either refuses to accept these conditions, or claims ignorance of what he has done wrong, then the current indefinite block should remain. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 13:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only change I see is that the current block should be shorter than the theoretical first block for violation, i.e. 2wks(current)/1mo/2mo/indef. Or 1wk(cur)/2wks/1mo/indef. If we decide to unblock, no sense in waiting 3 weeks before doing so, IMO. It won't help matters. Frank  |  talk  13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One other issue is that of nul edits, and 4 or 5 edits to the same article to correct minor mistakes that should have been caught using preview - not only does this increase the edit count (which is his focus), but really clutters up recent changes etc. Sadly, I think this means some form of # of edits per article per day restriction.  Though this seems unrelated, it's one of those "I don't get it" situations, as he has been reminded of this many times. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:00,

12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * New proposal, using Frank and BWilkin's suggestions:
 * WGB is blocked for 2 weeks at the current time
 * When he is unblocked, it is with the following conditions, which WGB must agree to before being unblocked:
 * WGB is banned from editing RfA or RfB for a period of 30 days from the time the block is lifted
 * WGB is further prohibited from starting a new RfA for a period of at least 3 months after the RfA ban has expired
 * WGB is to have an editing restriction listed at Editing restrictions, along the lines that should WGB engages in Wikilawyering, personal attacks (including threats and cajoling) or refusing to 'get the point' they will immediately be blocked for 1 month (in the first instance), 2 months (in the 2nd instance) and indefinitely (should a third instance occur). WGB is also to be restricted to a limit of 2 edits per article per day, to encourage him to use previews before saving, as per suggestions he has received previously on his talk page (and BWilkins' suggestion above), to also result in the named block if the restriction is not adhered to
 * Should WGB receive such a block, he will have no talk page access and no e-mail access for the duration of the block.
 * I trust this is a better wording. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is, though at the risk of beating this too much...how about 2 edits per hour? We don't want to discourage many edits...it's the many tiny edits close to each other. We just want to encourage slowing down and being confident of the change, not being so limiting as to make him feel like the edits are unwelcome. Frank  |  talk  14:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support proposal as stated above with "2 edits per hour" as the restriction -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 15:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have received a message from WGB about the "2 edits per hour" restriction:

Thank you for posting my message. Can I just explain to you here about the edits and the edit restriction and preview button since I have no other way of explaining myself? It is because of this and I am 100% being honest with you. I swear this is the truth. When I edit I only have a limited amount of time to send the edit or it won't be accepted. I do not know why others do not have the same problem, but I do and always have. Maybe it is my location or ISP but this is true. If I try to make all the edits at once and spend time and use preview then when I send the work I always get this message, "sorry but this wiki is busy at the moment" or something to that effect. And no matter how many times I try to send it, I can never get the edits through. This has happened to me so many times I cannot even tell you. Hundreds of times for sure. And many, many times I have written even an entire article and this happens to me and then I just lose everything I did. I have tried several different ways to work around this and none of them were successful and none of them helped the problem. The only thing I discovered that worked was if I would do a lot of fast and quick edits. If I send an edit within a minute it always works and I do not get disconnected. If I send an edit within 2 minutes it usually works, but even then often it does not. If I take like 4-5 minutes then most almost always it won't send. This is a big problem. Also the time stamps are always wrong and I have tried everything to fix it and it won't correct. No matter what it always shows the wrong time. If I make an edit at 1:30 it will show 7:30 for example, etc. and nothing works to fix it. I think maybe this is another glitch and problem with my access or account but it happens regardless. I guess you and many others do not have these problems, but I do and I swear with all truthfulness to you that this is the truth. Many are accusing me of doing this to get more edits but please understand this was not the case. Only about 1 out of every 3 or 4 times can I ever get an edit through if I take my time. I do not know what causes the problem but I am honest about this and I assure you that this is a real problem that exists for me in trying to send edits to the site. If I make several quick edits and keep doing that then I am OK. I also want to say that my recent edits were being used to make me look bad and that is unfair because I was doing code edits to an article and this takes time and as I explained I do not have time. I used preview as much as I could but I still had to send the edits. And if I made a null edit that is understandable there. Please note that rarely do I make such edits despite the problems getting my edits sent to the site. I have also used test edits many times at the sandbox but I do not need this anymore as I pretty much know how to send any kind of edit now. I am very honest about this. I am not trying to pad edit counts this is the truth. Please do not mistake the problem and issue there and make it where I would be restricted to 2 edits if I am allowed back. Because I have not been abusing the edit counter. This is just out of necessity and you can check that those last edits were very rare as I was sending color codes and uniform codes to the article. Those require a lot of test edits and previews and as I am trying to explain for some reason I am not able to send edits if I take too much time working on them. Normally if I am just adding text info to an article I do not have to test and preview the codes to see how they work. So please understand the problem and the reason and please do not even then base this on my last edits to the Sutor Basket Montegranaro article. I am being totally honest with you. I do not know hot else to explain this but this is the truth and this is something that is out of my control. All I was trying to do was upgrade and improve that article and be able to get my edits through. All my intention there was strictly honorable and just trying to help the site. I swear to you that this is the truth. I see you asked I be banned if I was allowed to come back and I broke the edit restriction rule but this would be placed on me due to something that is out of my control as the site causes the issue. It is not my fault that if I wait for any length of time before sending an edit that the site disconnects me and then I cannot get the edits sent. It has already caused me a lot of lost time and effort as it is. Limiting my edits to 2 would basically in effect ban me from the site because of this technical problem.

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points: 1) WP:COMPETENCE may apply, and 2) the email shows an almost complete lack of understanding of what is being discussed here. Frank |  talk  16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frank's second point is what deeply concerns me. I don't want to seem heartless and cruel, but, honestly, why are we even entertaining this nonsense? Time and time again this editor has demonstrated a lack of even basic comprehension skills. The only other explanation is a willful and deliberate attempt to appear ignorant of the issues at hand. Either way, this is unacceptable. This 2 edits per hour stipulation is, frankly, ludicrous. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the intent is two edits per hour per article. But it's so far beside the real points as to be almost meaningless. Frank  |  talk  16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand correct. Sorry about that. Still, I submit that the editor be temporarily blocked as indicated and restricted from RfX. indefinitely. I will Support this idea though. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 16:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it just wasn't clear; not your fault. Frank  |  talk  16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support with 2 edits per hour, but I would suggest making that only for namespaces other than the mainspace. His article contributions have not been disruptive, generally speaking. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about disruption as recent changes patrol and just a general "slow down...the encyclopedia isn't going anywhere". I also think any instructions and especially restrictions need to be simple and crystal-clear. Segregating by namespace may be problematic. Frank  |  talk  16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Wisdom hit it on the head. I would like to see WGB rehabilitate himself, but his return cannot come from this sort of behavior. I don't believe his threats are anything genuine, and even if they were it's not the community's responsibility: if he cannot "play the game", he shouldn't be here. I propose we close this discussion and revisit it in a few months. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the guy blocked, forever. I have no hard feelings against WGB, and indeed his article contributions can have been good. Yet the editor seems completely unable to understand the basics of the place, and seems incapable to cope psychologically with the daily chores of WP. If we unblock him, we all know that we will be here again discussing in a few days or weeks. The fact that he cannot let down and think about and instead resorts to write huge emails which miss completely the point is all too telling. Indef block it has to be. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock proposal
User:Wiki Greek Basketball is currently indefinitely blocked and has expressed desire for unblock via email, some of which is reproduced above. Please indicate support/oppose to the following proposal:

User:Wiki Greek Basketball ('WGB') may be unblocked with the following conditions:
 * WGB is banned from editing any RfA or RfB for a period of 30 days from the time the block is lifted.
 * WGB is prohibited from starting a new WP:RfA for any user for a period of 3 months after the RfA ban has expired (4 months total from being unblocked)
 * WGB shall not engage in Wikilawyering, personal attacks (including threats and cajoling) or refusing to 'get the point'
 * WGB is reminded that all other existing site policies still apply.
 * WGB is restricted to two edits per article per hour, in order to encourage use of preview and, if necessary, copy and paste from a separate text editor before saving.

If a violation of any of the above editing restrictions occurs, WGB will be blocked by any admin for 2 weeks (in the first instance), 1 month (in the 2nd instance) and indefinitely (should a third instance occur). Any block will exclude talk page edit privileges and e-mail access at the time the block is made, and no block review will be opened until the expiration of the block as specified here.

For clarity, if a block is enacted per the above, conditions 1 and 2 re-start from when the block is lifted, in accordance with Ban.

User:Wiki Greek Basketball: Please indicate agree or disagree: <talk page access to be enabled when this proposal is placed>

Frank |  talk  22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) RP459 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support unblock with the conditions stated above.  I frankly think that an indef block (or ban) for such a not very disruptive editor (I have seen much worse) based on three edits (all of them neither incivil nor immediately pointy,, , ) is rather excessive.  I think there has been a lack of communication at some point.  The user has not apparently been made formally aware that he was under a formal ban with respect to postings on RfA or RfB, which resulted in these , ,  posts.  Now that the user is formally made aware of the restrictions placed on him by the community, I see no reason not to unblock.  From what I can see he is doing a fairly good job editing basketball players' bios, let him continue. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looking at the archived version of WGB's talk page leads me to believe he was not always this way, and cthat we've only seen the very worst of his editing career here on ANI.  I'm fully confident he can get over whatever's bothered him so much lately and am willing to give him another chance to try. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, worth trying, given WGB may not have understood what was happening before. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, a previously good editor who had a very bad run and made some poor decisions. Deserves another chance if he is willing to abide by the conditions stated. Camw (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: If you guys want to stretch AGF to the limit, that's your affair; it's your time and effort and something positive may actually come out of it. Despite my belief that this is a complete waste of time, I'm willing to give anyone another chance (although WGM has had more than enough of those already). He seems to have been under the impression that acting clever, stupid or intimidating will enable him to get away with anything. So he better understand that as long as he's here, he has to play it Wikipedia's way and not by his own rules. If he doesn't want to learn the rules, he should stay away. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That has to be the worst "support" I've ever read. Perhaps put this in oppose? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Support" is clearly spelled out isn't it? ;) As I said, I'm willing to give him another chance, that's all. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm still not convinced that this is worth it; I know I wasted a lot of my time around the two blocks trying to get him back on track. However, if someone else is interested enough to spend the time to see this through, I won't stand in the way. - Spaceman  Spiff  02:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. We grant many more chances to editors who are disruptive in article space. Given that article space is what we are, in the end, here for, I'd give at least similar terms to a user who has been disruptive in project space. I'd suggest a longer RfA ban (at least 3 months) and ban from running for admin for an extra 3 months. "Let the punishment fit the crime". I'd also lose point 4 (it's redundant - of course they apply) and replace 5 by a suggestion ("WBG is encouraged to make more frequent use of preview or consider the possibility to use an external editor to prepare texts") - the current  restriction is easy to violate accidentally, giving the potential for more unnecessary drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen, point 4 is there to make it very clear to WGB that this is the case. This user has shown that other editors thinking "of course that's the case" does not always mean that he thinks that way. I feel that we have to be very explicit on all of the points on the proposal, so that WGB can have no doubts about what the community expects. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I feel it's redundant and a bit preachy, but it's not a deal breaker for me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Unblock Per this discussion as well as the above many seem to agree WGB wasnt formally advised of the ban. Many folk dont pick up on informal consensus, such as those who dont have English as their first language, or young people used only to well structured environments. This is why all decent organisations always formally communicate any sanctions they enact against individuals; as usually seems to be the case for Wikipedia.  The only exception to this is when an organisation deliberately sets out  to break folks spirit - as is the case in some prisons and military training institutions. In no other case Im aware of is it considered acceptable to punish folk for not obeying a sanction that wasnt formally communicated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support one last try. But I cannot support restriction 5; let's keep this as simple as possible. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) -- Cycl  o  pia  talk  23:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, it might be worth trying with restrictions on suicide threats, but not without it explicitly mentioned. --  IP69.226.103.13   |   Talk about me.   00:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable; I'd say your point is largely covered under all other existing site policies still apply, but it wouldn't hurt to be specific. If we put an addendum on his talk page after the proposal, reminding that Responding to threats of harm is included in the list of existing site policies that still apply, would that work for you? I'm trying to avoid editing the proposal so we can establish whether or not consensus exists without a whole lot more discussion. Frank  |  talk  03:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a "restriction on suicide threats" is sensible, but from what I can see this sort of "threat" has only happened once, and that was when the user (after much hounding) was facing an outright ban without any obvious way of contesting it. Please put yourselves into his shoes, just once!  There he is, minding his own business -- editing his basketball articles -- when he suddenly faces an indefinite block, for a couple of stray edits to RfA/RfB (all perfectly civil and apparently done in good faith)!  How would you feel after such treatment?  Anyway, to get back on track, can anybody point me to any major, serious disruption that this editor has caused -- so serious, in fact, that it has earned him a permanent block??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk)
 * The RfA/RfB edits were clearly POINTy--he had probably not even read the RfAs, just went to all the current ones and supported them as part of his lashing out. It wasn't as mean-spirited as the last time (where he opposed every current RfA with a rationale like "i didn't pass RfA, and I'm a better editor than you") but it's still part of the same crusade nonetheless.
 * As for what disruption this editor has caused...just look at the length of this page, and several versions of his talkpage (before he blanked them). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, now that I think about it, that saying thing such as "Support - I think you deserve a chance" can really be interpreted as being terribly POINTy. Yeah, I know, given this user's previous history everything is going to be taken with a grain of salt... but still I wouldn't care to assume that he had bad faith in saying this, when we are, after all, you know, supposed to have some, you know, what was it again, good faith, or something, in our fellow contributors...  Maybe, maybe after all, he's not so evil after all, so when he said "support - you deserve a chance" he really meant it... -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They were clearly POINTy (the point is "I wasn't given a chance on this terrible website but you should get one")--I don't know how familiar you were with WGB's behavior before, but when seen in light of that behavior these edits cannot be interpreted any other way.
 * As for assuming good faith, that can only be done for so long (as clearly stated at WP:AGF itself, if you read that page). Continuing to assume good faith against all other indications is just being dense. And even if WGB's intentions are good, he is simply not WP:competent. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Editor doesn't get it and, judging by his past pattern of behavior, never will. Giving him further chances will just lead to more time-wasting shenanigans like this one and the last two. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I find the unblock conditions sound and agree with them in principle. However, I can't at this time support the unblocking of an editor, who at the slightest adversity suffers complete mental breakdown to the point of contemplating suicide. As no editor can be shielded from scrutiny on Wikipedia, I feel this is too much strain both on WGB and the editors dealing with him. I'm willing to reconsider in the future.--Atlan (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now. It's just too soon to even consider thinking about unblocking him. He engaged in a pattern of disruption that lead to multiple, very lengthy ANI threads and even has his own subpage!! Surely that reads like an entry in the troll hall of fame? If I can go for a period of three weeks (from the start of the current block) without hearing his name and, upon an appropriately sincere unblock request from WGB which shows he is willing to get back to contributing constructively, then I will support his unblocking with all but the last of the editing restrictions (which prevents him from building an article should he so choose) imposed. Try again on the 31st.
 * As an aside, if, and only IF he agrees not to make constant unblock requests, I think his talk page and access thereto should be restored if it hasn't been already. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose An editor who needs thats many restrictions on them shouldn't be unblocked. Two edits per article per hour? Who is going to police that? And he was already community banned from RFA, and broke that restriction very quickly. Leave him blocked for a few months and we can see if he's matured a bit in his approach then. I thught we already came to that conclusion last week. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Initially I was going to support as I was saying above, but I find these conditions a little strange and arbitrary - mostly the article editing cap. Also, I do not feel that 30 days is any where near the maximum time this user should stay away from RfX. With that said, I cannot support these conditions and submit that the editor remains blocked indefinitely. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 03:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose no way. Editor was clearly disruptive, they had a lot of chances to rectify their behaviour well before they got blocked. This is an encyclopedia, I see no evidence that they are editing in such a way as to contribute constructively and as uncontroversially as possible to this project. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. And I'll win the Powerball jackpot when WGB becomes civil and edits constructively >_< -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - while I haven't closely followed every minute of this drama, there's one piece missing (imo): has WGB ever acknowledged that any of what's happened is his own damn fault? At least in part? So far as I can tell, he'll say anything he thinks will get him unblocked, after which he'll either conveniently forget what he agreed to, or blame it all on admins ganging up on him, or say that because he didn't think he was breaking #3, it shouldn't count. I can't support this without some acknowledgement from him that he did something—anything—wrong, and that he at least will not do that particular thing again. Otherwise, we're just setting ourselves up for failure. <span style='font:bold 1.0em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose User has been explained over and over about how Wikipedia works, and he is not willing to acknowledge any wrongdoing. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events lead to his blocking and why are these restrictions proposed I will support his unblocking. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  07:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, for ███████ sake, he's not entitled to an almost immediate unblock so soon after causing such massive disruption. Ridiculous proposal. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 08:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * what say you to my proposal of a review in three weeks? <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We should be planning now to let him back. At all. Seriously... <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► Speaker ─╢ 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to type "not" instead of "now"? Your reply would make a lot more sense if it were corrected. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#05C>Th <font color=#07A>e T <font color=#098>hi <font color=#0B6>ng <font color=#F70>Vandalize <font color=#F40>me 16:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Enough is enough. --Rschen7754 08:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose at this time This is far too early. WGB was argumentative, then threatened editors, then commented on being possibly suicidal. I find it hard to believe that being told "this is not punishment" can lead someone to believe "this is not under effect anymore." I worked hard to try to bring WGB on board and guide them.  After the situation, I went back at looked at hundreds of his "contributions".  The majority are generally 4 edits within 2 minutes to the same article that are corrections of his immediately previous edit.  These could have been easily done with "show preview".  WGB claims technical issues - which over the last 2 days might be valid, but not overall.  WGB was issued the WP:OFFER, with some willing to reconsider after 3 months.  I believe 3 months is a MINIMUM, and at that point, these identical restrictions (although perhaps with longer ban from RfA) should be put in place and monitored closely. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not give it one month, let the dust settle, and then quietly allow for the re-evaluating of the situation here, assuming WGB wants to come back. If the consensus is still that he should remain blocked, then that should be the case. As I say above, I think it's far too early to be considering an unblock now, but people may feel differently in a month. Or three months. Or longer. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Absofuckinlutely not. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  13:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) What Tan Said - WGB needs to take this time and learn the rules and if he shows the community in say 6 months, then and only then should WGB be allowed back. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Neutralhomer took the words out of my mouth... couldn't have said it better. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#05C>Th <font color=#07A>e T <font color=#098>hi <font color=#0B6>ng <font color=#F70>Vandalize <font color=#F40>me 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose I'd support in six months. He's got to learn that there's more to life than this website. You can't survive here otherwise. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I've watched the whole mess from afar but the smell kept me from getting involved until now. The block is well-earned, and we have little reason to think that WGB will change ways any time soon. Let it stand. – ClockworkSoul 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose Articles on Greek basketball will take a pretty big downturn if he stays blocked, but the idea of giving this long a leash to someone this hardheaded is ridiculous. <font color="#FF6600" face="Garamond">Şłџğģő 22:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * The ban from RFA and RFB needs to be longer than a month.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but he should be allowed continuing doing what he was doing before -- that is, editing mainspace about basketball players and baskebtall teams . I really see no teribly serious problems with those edits (aside from severe lack of edit summaries -- but that is a separate matter).  Definitely nothing immediately block-worthy.  So if he's made perfectly clear what is and what isn't a blockable offence in his case, he should be safe. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, preventing him from being involved in RFA may work. However, he has to know that the behavior he expressed is entirely inappropriate and unbecoming of either a Wikipedia user, administrator, or whatever. This has not happened. If we can prevent him from being involved in RFA for more than a month we will get something better out of him.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 06:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall two such earlier attempts... and they kinda went wrong... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a total block of RFA/RFB, (and no other editing restrictions), be easier to police? Then, in a couple of month, WGB could appeal his RFA/RFB block like any other blocks. FFMG (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he should get another chance...but I think that FIRST he needs to a)agree explicitly to the conditions; and b)either post on his talk page or e-mail an admin with a post explaining his understanding of exactly what he did wrong and why he was blocked in the first place. Additionally, I think the following two items should be added to his conditions: 1. WGB agrees that he will not react overdramatically to simple warnings, cautions, or comments made by other editors. The pearl-clutching and fainting-away was just aggravating (to say nothing of a gigantic time-sink). And 2) WGB agrees not to start an RfA/RfB for himself, nor to accept nomination from anyone else, for at least 6 months. RfA is clearly a huge emotional focus for him, and I for one think it would be in his best interest to WAIT. So far we've seen that he has difficulty making himself do that; if the community needs to write a rule to make him watch out for his own best interests, so be it. And I also support at least a 2-week wait before we unblock, regardless of what conditions are enacted. I think it's still too soon. GJC 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, ANI sanctions most often end with an indef block anyway. I'm only supporting this because, as I said, WGB may not have understood (or been aware of) the sanctions before. A wait of a week or two would be ok. Either way, with this kind of editing background, a reblock would be easy and swift. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, WGB took place in the original discussion, and clearly was aware what every single section of my proposal said. He was aware that it was endorsed by the community.  When his incorrect notion was brought to his attention, he threatened not one but two editors.  I'm not going to badger, but he clearly was aware. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to find the diff where he made the (mistaken) claim he wasn't under any sanctions. I thoroughly understand why so many editors don't think it'd be worthwhile to unblock at this time, as I hinted above, I do think an unblock now would likely end with a reblock or even a siteban. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any opinions as to whether his second email (about his weird editing problems) is (a) complete bollocks (b) complete incompetence (c) an interesting problem for a mediawiki geek with a free weekend. I'd like to know whether he's just making up any old rubbish (in which case I'd be inclined to keep him blocked) or whether he is editing with a technical problem (which might explain a few of his actions). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, and I'm not sure if it's a communication in English problem, but after reading his emails and various talk page comments, I get the sense that there is a level of stubborn immaturity here. Some of his complaining borders on virtual tantrums. Am I alone is this observation. I don't want to personally insult him, but that's just how I feel. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another e-mail from WGB:

I repeat again that I am sorry. I am repentant and I promise to never do any such things again. I really did want to be an admin, but my decision to try for that has caused me an incredible amount of stress and has now taken away my ability to contribute to my favorite website, which is one of my favorite activities.

if I would have known before I applied to be an admin what i know now I would have never ever made that enormous mistake. If I could take it all back I would. I just want to be able to back to being able to edit the main space and please without the edit restriction. The edit restriction is Draconian and making it such that it would cause a ban if broken means I would be banned again and then forever. There is no way that I could meet that without making a mistake and I have never seen such a similar restriction placed on anyone throughout the entire project. I realize with such things being asked to be placed on me that I am 100% fully not wanted here and will never be welcome here again.

I can only say I am sorry and apologize and I cannot obviously ever be accepted here again by some. I am saddened by this. I would like to clarify the accusations that I made a pointy vote to RFA and RFB and also that I knew I was banned from there. I did not. Wikipedia has certain rules. Such as consensus and non consensus it also has standards about properly notifying users of decisions against them.

I will quote Wikipedia's own guidelines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_consensus#Blocking_and_other_admin_actions

"Blocking and other admin actions

When discussing the appropriateness of a block (or other admin action), a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that admin action. As with policy, blocks and other admin actions should reflect the consensus of the community. And, while an admin does not need to have a discussion prior to acting in good faith, if a subsequent discussion fails to produce consensus for the action, it should be reversed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Community_discussions_and_polls

"Community discussions and polls

Policy shortcut:

WP:PRACTICAL

Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales

Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project name space. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others."

This would apply not only to the RFA ban that was never formalized but also to the current indefinite ban against me. But unfortunately very few editors seem interested in actually what Wikipedia states on these matters. I did not understand that I was banned from RFA and I was not informed of it, and based on how the site describes consensus it is not at all clear that I was "banned from RFA by the community" as so many editors keep asserting.

Therefore, I was under the belief that I was not banned from the RFA or RFB. Also, if I was even then I was never informed of it, as site policy dictates I should have been. And so then even if I was, since I was not properly informed of it, I was not made aware of it. So therefore, I believed I was allowed to vote at RFA and RFB as long as made good and legit and sincere edits. I did this and immediately action was filed against me. I tried to explain that I was not actually banned, which is an actual fact per the actual site policy of Wikipedia. This led to an immediate indefinite block of me.

Even though based on site policy I was not actually banned from RFA many editors continue to falsely insist that I was. They also ignore site protocol and seem to believe that their own opinions on how things should be done matter more that actual policies like informing me I was banned if I in fact was. These are not minor and insignificant details. Also, it is still being said by some that my votes to RFA and RFB were pointy. They were not. I am being accused of making pointy votes out of the imagination and nothing more of a certain editor.

Several editors have now pointed out that in fact consensus of being banned from RFA was not clear and that no decision was posted. Also that I was never informed of any ban that supposedly existed. Despite several editors pointing this out, a certain number of other editors refuse to even acknowledge this and still continue to falsely state that I was banned from RFA. This is a fiction and simply made up. They continue to assert a clear falsehood against me and to ignore when other editors point out that they are wrong about it.

There is nothing I can possibly do in my own power other than to explain myself over and over and apologize for any problem I have caused and say that I am very sorry about it. I have done this several times. I have been asked to promise not to cause any trouble again and I absolutely promise I will not. I have no intention of ever applying for admin again as this is obviously greatly angering a small number of editors. Unfortunately for me this same editors have been able to clearly show they can keep me from the site if they want to. So they win. I will never apply for RFA again. I also will never ever under any circumstance ever vote there or anything. The amount of grief this has caused me is ridiculous. Not to mention the certain aspect that I cannot even mention.

All I want is my site access back and my ability to edit articles as I have always done. And I have always been a good editor and made good edits. All these very condescending and patronizing accusations that I pad edit counts and all that is absolute nonsense and an insult to me and the actual excellent work I have done at Wiki. Even if I explain the reasons why I might sometimes have a lot of quick edits, my explanation is turned against me that I am either incompetent or that I am ignorant or playing games or any other very insulting and very out of line baseless personal attacks against me.

I apologize and try to express I just want to be a good editor and it just gets thrown back at me again and again. There are certain editors that simply want me gone. If I saved their life or their kids life they would still be demanding a permanent ban. There is no point for me to have to continue to beg and gravel for these people to just keep trashing me and putting me down and only to just say "ban him" once again after it all.

I have gotten very upset and frustrated at times and I am very sorry about that. I have said this and apologized for this now several times and I am a bit dismayed that some editors still say I have not properly apologized. I do not know what else to say about it? I should not have done that. I just want to clarify that again some editors seem to keep painting me as some sort of bad guy or villain. Actually I am a very nice guy. Plenty of people have been very, rude to me also. So I just want to state that. With that being said, I have fully and totally learned my lesson on that. I promise that if my ban is lifted I will NEVER be in any way rude to any other editor ever again. Even if they are rude to me first, even if they are asking for me to be banned falsely and stating things against me that are not true, I will ignore it or whatever. I promise to do my best to be as polite and as professional as possible in personal correspondence and interactions with other users.

I have also been asked by some editors to explain the events of things that led to me being banned, why I was wrong, how it caused my ban etc. Well OK. This is the truth, it is a fact of how it happened and is absolutely the way it happened and the FACT of the matter. If any other editors say it is not then they are distorting the truth.

I applied for an RFA and it went very poorly. Some of the comments were a bit out of line to me, but I made a mistake and I was wrong because I got mad about it. Several editors began arguing with me as I did with them (let me stress I was not solely causing the argument as some other editors like portray it)........I got angry and frustrated and I acted out of line and I crossed the line and personally insulted other users. This was out of frustration and as I say other editors helped it by arguing with me and pushing my buttons.

I was totally out of line for reacting how I did and for that I was properly and fairly banned for 31 hours. I deserved it and I admit that and that is what caused it and how it happened. Then some editors wanted to further argue with me in user talk and once again I made another mistake. Some editors started making posts to my talk page right after my block sort of to gloat. I should have ignored it. My mistake not to and I got out of line. I did make an honest mistake however in that I was under the impression that I could edit my talk page however I wanted it. Anyway I should not have done that and I was totally out of line and I admit that. Even though I thought it was OK to handle my talk page as I wanted I still was out of line. I will NOT do that again ever if my block is lifted.

For that I served a week ban. I served the ban and that was that. I came back and then I applied for another RFA. Try to understand that I was unaware that there was a restriction on this. I had read all through the site and could not find this rule. I still have not been able to find this rule anywhere but apparently many admin are under the impression the rule exists. I will say that since the site actually does not list the rule that it is wholly unfair to place the rule on editors. So I had no way of knowing that admin did not allow another RFA within a couple weeks or so. I did not know and nowhere on wiki said it was not allowed.

OK, I made the next RFA and immediately the request was made to ban me. I then had to fight to defend myself to not get banned. This discussion then ended without consensus and also without an outcome being established or published. I was never informed or told of any "RFA ban". So based on site policy and rules I was NOT in fact banned from RFA. If there are many editors that are under the false impression that I was, even though I was not, then that is something that they need to fix, not me. The fact that several other editors have pointed this out should be enough for these editors to grasp that I was not banned and that, again, even if I was, I was never made aware of it.

The argument that "I should have known" or that "it was obvious" is simply a made up personal opinion and does not meet the site guidelines. You cannot just make up your own rules, no matter if you are an admin or anyone else. Regardless of how badly some editors have convinced themselves that I was banned from RFA, I was in fact not banned from it.

What was clear and was understood was that I could not make any pointy votes and I could not apply for another RFA. Even though the site is not giving info about applying for RFA. OK. So I was not to apply for RFA, nor to make pointy votes. And I understood that. But I was NOT banned from RFA. That is a fact. And I am sorry if some editors are angry and ticked off about this, but facts are more important than sheer opinions. They can say it a billion, gagillion times that I was "banned from RFA", but it's not true. And I am a big believer in the truth. Not just what any person wants to pass off as the truth.

So, I was perfectly allowed to vote at the RFA and the RFB. As long as the vote was not pointy. I did NOT make pointy votes. Which has also been pointed out by several other editors. To this point and to the issue that I was not actually banned as pointed out by other editors, the new tact and antic to paint me in an unfair light was to simply state that I did vote pointy simply because that editor is saying it. If that editor said so it is so. That editor says it was a pointy vote, so it was a pointy vote. So now other editors are actually being POINTY against me, to try to distort my legit votes, just to prop up this made up nonsense that i was making pointy votes. Which is a fiction. And this is because they know that I was not actually banned from RFA and they know that they have no argument to stand on. They just want me gone from the site and they want to stifle the dissent.

Now let me make clear that I am not stupid. The tact and antic to what I have written here will be to say that I am making accusations of a "cabal". That not so very tactful tact has already been placed on me. It won't work. I am referring simply to the editors that continue to false assert that I was banned from voting at RFA. It's not true. The reason I was blocked is because supposedly I was banned from RFA. Bwilkins reported me for this, but the problem was I was not banned from voting at RFA. I personally believe that he should be a lot more careful the next time he reports an editor. And I assure you that many other editors would feel the same.

This cavalier and nonchalant view of accusing editors of things is very unbecoming and wrong. And this penchant that some editors have for warping and distorting the facts just to make other editors look bad is quite disturbing and uncalled for. I was not banned from RFA. Admit the mistake and stop persecuting me wrongly for a crime I did not commit.

OK. I have answered all the questions. I have explained the whole thing, what I did wrong, why I was banned in the past, and also why it was not fair to ban me for voting at RFA. I have also promised to never be rude or to insult another user EVER. The statements made here are not any insults to anyone, they are simply pointing out the facts of the issue. I have explained how I just want to edit articles and that is all. I don't want anything to do with being an admin, RFA voting or any of that. It has caused me nothing but problems and headaches. I want just to be left alone and to go back to my article work. There is no reason also to put an edit restriction on me, and to be honest about it, that's about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen at ANI on wiki.

So, this is how it is. I have apologized over and over. I have admitted my mistakes over and over. I have promised to change certain wrong things i have done. I have made a commitment to be on my best behavior from now on. I have even given that I won't bother with RFA again. I wanted to be an admin and no, I did not want it for "power" as I have been accused. But with all the BS I have taken since I applied for RFA I am so sick of the thought of it. So since RFA is what is making so many people so angry, again I won't bother with it. I'm through with it.

And once again, despite all of this, and being actually wrongly banned due to this false "RFA ban" that did not actually exist, I still cannot change the opinion that certain editors seem to have of me. They don't like me, they want me gone, end of story. Well that is fine. There is no need for me to beg to these people to lift my ban when they won't do it anyway. Regardless, they have to follow the site guidelines.

I repeat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_consensus#Blocking_and_other_admin_actions

"Blocking and other admin actions

When discussing the appropriateness of a block (or other admin action), a discussion that results in "no consensus" should result in the reversal of that admin action. As with policy, blocks and other admin actions should reflect the consensus of the community. And, while an admin does not need to have a discussion prior to acting in good faith, if a subsequent discussion fails to produce consensus for the action, it should be reversed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Community_discussions_and_polls

"Community discussions and polls

Policy shortcut:

WP:PRACTICAL

Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales

Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus.

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project name space. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others."

That is the best I can do to explain what i did wrong, my past errors, promise to change, explain why I should not in fact be blocked, and also to explain that if certain editors refuse to be fair and objective that is their fault and their problem, and not a blight on my character or editing. I promise completely that there will be no more issues with me if you lift my ban I will just edit articles and that will be it. I will not bother others and only be polite to them if they talk to me, or just ignore them, whichever I think is most appropriate for the circumstance. I will NOT cause any problems, I promise. I tell you all of this and I should not have even been banned for voting at RFA to begin with.


 * Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 17:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it depended on me, this mail would be the definitive tombstone on WGB's possibility of lifting the block:
 * I just want to be able to back to being able to edit the main space and please without the edit restriction. - Not accepting conditions.
 * I tried to explain that I was not actually banned... etc. Still doesn't get it.
 * There is no reason also to put an edit restriction on me, and to be honest about it, that's about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen at ANI on wiki. Unable to argue about the situation without mocking.
 * And this penchant that some editors have for warping and distorting the facts just to make other editors look bad is quite disturbing and uncalled for. Still repeats it's not his fault, basically, but that of editors "distorting the facts".


 * WGB just doesn't understand what's going on. He thinks that a generic apology and obsessively begging for mercy will be enough. It's not begging we need. It's evidence of dealing with a rational person. We haven't. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh my freaking Crikey. He participated in the RFA ban discussion, and knew exactly what was going on. As he was responding through to the end, he knew the result. He knew he was banned by community consensus. There can be no doubt. This is perhaps the most brutal attempted wikilawyering I have ever seen. There was no mistaken belief by other editors. Is there an WP:IDONTGETIT? There should be. I was willing to lower the WP:OFFER to three months...I think I'm back to 6 because he has a lot of reading/learning to do...that's not punitive, it's purely preventative. I will say no more - it's embarasing enough that I put myself on the wire for this editor, but to come to this? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Close discussion?
I don't see a consensus to unblock and I don't see a high likelihood of it developing. I will be away for several days, unable to close this discussion and comment on WGB's talk page. Would someone volunteer to take that on, either today or in the next day or two? Frank |  talk  17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is the option to close after unblocking. There doesnt need to be consensus to unblock, just the abscence of concensus to uphold it. To summarise the latest email, WGB apologises at length and shows understanding for mistakes such as the way he presented his RFA, his pushiness in trying to keep it open, and for reacting badly and making accusations about cabals. He says he will stay away from RfA and just wants to be allowed to go back to content building. Although there is more support for the block, there doesnt seem to be  consensus to uphold it etiher, so perWP:No consensus  it seems a kind hearted admin is at liberty to give him another chance? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's pretty significant consensus for the indef block at the top of this page. The proposal was for conditions of unblock, as "indefinite" does not mean "forever". I don't see a consensus developing around the proposed unblock conditions, and I'm not of a mind to waste community time in drafting another, primarily because most objections seem to focus on either longer or otherwise harsher restrictions. Perhaps the wording of the unblock proposal was not sufficient; perhaps it's just too soon after the indef was imposed. I'm personally not in a position to monitor an unblock, nor to continue discussing this particular proposal, nor to unblock of my own accord. YMMV. Frank  |  talk  18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's actually 17 Oppose vs 10 Support, with some supports explicitly very, very weak (see n.7,n.8). I'd say it is pretty clear consensus for keeping the block. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that my support was for a conditional unblock, not just an unblock. If there are just two choices of leave blocked and unblock, then I'm clear in supporting as leaving blocked. The discussion here is not on the block itself, but for a conditional unblock. Consensus on the block is/was pretty clear.- Spaceman  Spiff  18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are at least 11 support votes, and some of the oppose votes oppose the conditions, not the unblock. I'd say "no consensus" is a fair description. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you feel we should then unblock uncondionally, because there's no consensus reached on unblock conditions, as if the unblock itself is under no consideration? A strange way of reasoning.--Atlan (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Stephan was simply saying "no consensus to unblock" is a fair assessment of the discussion above. It looked to me like it was in support of my statement opening this section: "I don't see a consensus to unblock..." Frank  |  talk  18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's possible, yes. Stephan's comment is ambiguous enough for me to ask.--Atlan (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While "no consensus" allows for an unblock if someone is willing to do so, it does not imply that that unblock needs to be unconditional. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So let me rephrase the question. Do you feel an unblock is now acceptable if someone is willing to do it, conditional or otherwise, because the discussion about unblock conditions lead to no consensus? I will restate that I find that a strange way of reasoning.--Atlan (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if a community ban requires consensus, but there is significant support for an unblock, that allows, but does not require an unblock - at the discretion of the executing admin. In this particular case, I'm on the fence. I think WGB means well. I don't know if he can do well. Mentoring might be worth a try. I'm to busy to monitor his actions, so I'm not gonna unblock him on my responsibility for now. But I'm not opposed if another admin is willing to do so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This conversation is ridiculous. There is no consensus to unblock, it's way too soon to even be talking about it, and clearly no admin is interested in unblocking him or it would have happened by now. I again repeat that we should just point him to WP:OFFER and stop feeding this fire. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur almost unreservedly with Beeblebrox. It's just too soon. The dust has barely settled from his disruption, as the length alone of this page will testify. Give it a few a weeks and then we might consider an unblock- indefinite does not necessarily mean "permanent". <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User talk:Wiki Greek Basketball
Talk page unprotected, then reprotected, email blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page unprotected by Mjroots and prevented from using email function by TBSDY. However, due to WP:SUICIDE, the user page has now been protected again. has contacted me with the request to have his user talk page unprotected. This user was community-banned the other day and then had his talk page locked because he made comments mentioning suicide that led people to think he was mentally unstable. He now wishes to appeal his ban, and while I don't see this as particularly likely to succeed (and I understand the ban appeals subcommittee unblock-en list may already have turned him down), he certainly sounds stable and rational enough that those suicide concerns appear moot, so I see no strong reason to deny him the talk page further.

He being a Greek user I'm not supposed to take action myself, so I'll ask here if anybody would grant him the favour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the relevant discussions see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball. Phoe   talk   08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Has he offered any particular justification for unblocking his access to the talk page? In all honesty, this user has come up a lot recently and the community's consensus was pretty strong. No unblock request posted there could reasonably be acted upon by an administrator without at least first deferring to the community, and in that regard perhaps the appropriate course of action would be to open the request here, but I'll say flat out right now I personally see nothing to justify an unbanning simply for temporal reasons. Perhaps a few months from now, but not now. And, while I cannot speak on behalf of the community as a whole, if the community does in fact agree with me that it is too early to consider an unbanning, then I don't see a reason to unblock the talk page either based on the circumstances that led to that event. If there was any rationale on WGB's part, though, I think it should be noted. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 08:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way thus far at least six admins/user have received an email with a request to unblock him, what in my eyes is a clear repetition of his previous behaviour and additionally suggests no change in his attitude. As he has done already with his notifications of bureaucrats, I would assume that he intends to sent this email to admins till such time as he has reached his aim. Phoe   talk   09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have no dog in this fight, obviously; as far as I am concerned anybody is welcome to close this and consider the request denied, if people feel the consensus is clear. My own view is there's little harm in him having the talk page, where he can make requests and argue his case in a transparent way, which would take away the incentive for the e-mail admin shopping. But that's just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why there's another checkbox in the block UI.— Ryūlóng (<font color="Gold">竜龙 ) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow the talk page access, on the strict understanding that it will be blocked again if the talk page is not used constructively. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the discussion at ANI linked to above, I see no reason why this unblocking should be considered for at least a month or two (although probably nearer 6 months). As for the e-mails to admins, I have sent (through Wikipedia e-mail user) advice to WGB not to contact any more admins about this, as this will risk the loss of Wiki e-mail rights. I have also suggested that he reads the 'standard offer' carefully - and that a discussion regarding his unblocking will be initiated in time. I have also said that if he continues to contact admins about unblocking, he is risking the block going from indefinite (i.e. with no fixed time set) to infinite. Hopefully he will use common sense and refrain from emailing admins. I would support allowing him his talk page access back - if he is disruptive there again, then he can have it removed again - in which case he also loses access to Wikipedia mail as well -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose, for now. The user has been repeatedly explained why his behavior was considered disruptive, yet, he has shown no sign of understanding. The reasoning of the user is that his mistake was to nominate himself at WP:RFA, when it was his attitude after being declined what was really considered disruptive. If he demonstrates an understanding of how the chain of events led to his blocking, I would support unprotecting his talk page. > RUL3R <sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>trolling <sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>vandalism  10:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support unblock of talk page. It is not onerous to allow WGB the opportunity to talk things through with any editor willing to help him understand where he stands and how he can restore his standing with the community, and I don't believe there is any compelling reason this should be done off-wiki. The disruption potential at his own talk page is contained, and talk page access can be removed again at the drop of a hat. MLauba (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know how many people he has contacted via email, as I have also been contacted. However, as he has been blocked and his user talk page protected, I guess that he took this course of action is not unreasonable. Perhaps we should unprotect his user page? Or is there an email address I'm not aware of that we can refer him to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the unblock-en e-mail list. Apparently he's already tried that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right then. I'm restricting his on-email wiki access as he already knew about that email address. More examples of disruption. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He emailed me as well, before he was asked to stop. He claims he will abide by our 'site policies', but does he understand them? I guess I wouldn't oppose letting him use his talk page to convince us. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He also e-mailed me, received on 18th at 18:22 hrs. System put the e-mail in my spam box . Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also received an e-mail from him a few days ago. Ucucha 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—why don't we allow him use of his talkpage, but block email access? He's been effectively spamming tens of editors and (I think) most of the bureaucrats about this (talkpage-spammed all the bureaucrats, my mistake), despite being repeatedly turned down. If he has talkpage access, everything's open, so we can withdraw his ability to email. How's that sound? <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► You may go away now. ─╢ 11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support talk page unprotection. It will probably be several months before the consensus moves towards unblocking him completely, but I see no harm in restoring his access to his talk page- it's something we allow the most egregious vandals and trolls. Besides, it can be taken away again without any faff. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJMitchell  <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">You rang?   11:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now unprotected WGBs talk page. The e-mail restriction can stay for now. Any abuse of the talk page by WGB and the privilege can be revoked by any admin without further ado. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Going by posts here and on his talk page one can see he's sent, at least, more than half a dozen emails to admins in the last day or so. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gwen, I'm AGFing here - he knows that admins have the tools to unblock him, so as he couldn't leave messages on his talk page, he's contacting admins in the hope that one of them will. Hopefully, he'll read the messages on his talk page and realise that (a) he can post there now; (b) he won't be unblocked in the immediate future. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I emailed him to let him know. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had previously blocked access to this page per WP:SUICIDE. No one a) thought to consult me or b) even brought up the reason it was protected. Excellent work, guys. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you note this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the protection note and on the talk page, as one normally would. Here. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that... it looks like Gwen might have accidentally removed your suicide notice. I'm going to reprotect and restore your comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but FPAS mentioned it in the very opening post to this thread, and also mentioned he believe the user to be stable, which very much influenced at least my vote to unblock the talk page. To this otherwise uninvolved administrator, it starts looking like we're playing bureaucratic games with the user. I don't think re-protecting the talk page is warranted at present. MLauba (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Start a straw poll to find consensus that this user is "stable", and I almost guarantee you it will fail. I don't think unprotecting the talk page was warranted. The bureaucratic game was to unprotect the talk page while keeping him blocked and disabling email; what was that for? This situation was handled appropriately until this thread. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan &#124; <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to keep that page protected. I think we should all cool it - nobody was playing a game over how to deal with this editor, indeed all I see is a desire to be fair towards him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative, but beyond the one mention he made when initially threatened with a block, has WGB made any other mentions of suicide? None of the messages that he sent me had any indication of such feelings - but as I'm not an admin, I've not heard from him recently. Has anyone had any further mentions? The reason I'm asking is, how long do we assume that he has suicidal feelings - as I say, none of the communications I've seen after that one have shown any indications. Also, with no talk page access and no e-mail access, how is WGB supposed to ask for the block to be lifted in the future? If he contacts ArbCom, they will look at the discussion here, and say that they can't lift it as it was a community decision, so it seems to me that he has no way of contacting anyone. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From my communications from him, I also got the impression that the is no longer unstable. Ucucha 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral as to unprotecting the page. I'm not aware of any later threats and I see no need for leaving a link to a suicide counseling service on that talk page (if anything, I think it's unhelpful to both the user and the project). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He has already sent an email to the the unblock address, and was denied. He won't be unblocked, at least not any time soon. I don't think there is a problem here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think blocking + talk page protection + e-mail disabled is an excellent sock knitting system, hence the suggestion to unprotect the talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Was there consensus to change the block like this in the first place? I don't understand how an admin can change it with just 3 clear supports when there are opposes to it as well. Especially when this comes only about a week after his block and eventual unblock request (which was denied with consensus clearly against it). This is not the same as overturning another admin's decision. A wider discussion should take place before we try to change something that was decided by the community. What's the hurry? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only concern about the suicide threat. As always, I put my actions forward to the general admin community. If they were in error, please feel free to reverse. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ChamalN, there were more supports than opposes when I allowed WGB access to his talk page. I thought I spelled it out clearly enough that allowing such access was a privilege and not a right and that abuse of the talk page would lead to it being re-blocked. If I made an error in my actions I apologise. Even admins can make a mistake! As with all my administrative actions, I'm open to reasonable discussion and persuasion if anyone feels that my action was not correct. I notice from the talk page history that WGB did not edit his talk page before the block was re-imposed. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail from WGB
Here is the latest (you can see my first e-mail to him today, and my reply to his response to that):

From: Phantomsteve

Sent: 19 January 2010 18:48

To: 'Apollo'

Subject: RE: Your emails to admins

WGB,

Firstly: I cannot allow you to edit your user page. I am not an admin, as I've told you in the past.

Secondly: You did threaten to kill yourself when you were first blocked. Guidelines normally indicate that the account of a person who does this is blocked, with no editing allowed to their talk page. No one has said that you threatened to kill yourself today - all of the references are to your previous threat

Thirdly, your access to email through Wikipedia has been removed because you contacted multiple admins.

Fourthly, no one is going to contact the police - you aren't threatening to kill yourself, so there is no cause for the police to be contacted with your location.

READ the advice on your talk page.

READ the standard offer.

I see that you have done editing on other Wikipedias:

- Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia.org) - 11 edits - last edit 10 April 2009

- Croatian Wikipedia (hr.wikipedia.org) - 3 edits - last edit 5 April 2009

- French Wikipedia (fr.wikipedia.org) - 27 edits - last edit 10 April 2009

- Italian Wikipedia (it.wikipedia.org) - 18 edits - last edit 10 January 2010

- Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org) - 34 edits - last edit 5 April 2009

I also see that you have an account on commons (commons.wikimedia.org), but that doesn't have any edits.

If you go to one of the other Wikipedias (you are only blocked on the English one), you can sort out getting a Unified login (all the accounts will be linked) - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login#How_to_unify_your_accounts for details. (To see the list that I used to find your contributions, go to http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Wiki+Greek+Basketball)

If I was you, I would continue editing on the other Wikipedias (also, you can edit at the Greek Wikipedia at el.wikipedia.org) - your block is *only* on the English Wikipedia.

Regards,

Phantomsteve

________________________________

From: Apollo

Sent: 19 January 2010 17:36

To: Phantomsteve

Subject: Re: Your emails to admins

Can you please allow me to edit my user talk page? They blocked my email and they still won't allow me access to my user talk page. Mjroots the admin granted me access to edit my talk page and then two other admin took it off and claimed I threatened to kill myself and that this gave them the right to permanently remove any access to my talk page.

I did NOT do anything like that. How can they say I threatened to kill myself just today when that happened weeks ago? You know that this is not true and you know that they are lying and treating me unfairly and that they are abusing their positions as admin. Can you please give me back my user talk page access and tell them to stop saying I am threatening to kill myself when they are lying about it. If the police show up to my house because those admin made up a lie that I threatened suicide then I will take the proper procedures to deal with them.

--- On Tue, 1/19/10, Phantomsteve wrote:

From: Phantomsteve

Subject: Your emails to admins

To: "Wiki Greek Basketball"

Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 3:18 AM

I would strongly suggest that you stop sending e-mails to admins asking to be unblocked.

This is for two reasons:

Firstly, following the community discussion, no admin would even consider thinking about it for at least another month (if not longer - I'd probably say nearer to 6 months)

Secondly, if you continue to e-mail admins, then you are risking losing your e-mail rights on Wikipedia. Should this happen, the only way in which you would be able to communicate would be to send an e-mail through normal e-mail systems (i.e. not through Wikipedia) to ArbCom - and they would not overturn a block so overwhelmingly backed by the community.

My advice would be to read the 'standard offer' linked to on your talk page, and just wait. In time, a discussion will be restarted regarding your possible unblocking. If you continue to badger the admins, you will risk putting yourself in the position where your indefinite block (i.e. with no specific time scale) will become an infinite block (i.e. no chance of being unblocked).

I hope that you will pay attention to this advice - it really is for you own good.

If you choose to ignore it, then that is your right, but I think I am only saying what you have probably seen on ANI and on your talk page.

Regards,

Phantomsteve

-- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think WGB's talk page (protected or not) is more fit for this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, so I can't put anything on WGB's talk page. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 19:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I should have said is, WGB is only forum shopping and trying to keep things stirred up. There's no need to post his emails here, but I know you're being helpful and I'd be startled if anyone thought otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And here I thought by posting a simple note on his talk page I could avoid yet another long ANI thread in this subject... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...forum shopping much? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)