![User avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="90" height="90"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Why does Wikipedia even allow this?Born2cycle
Born2cycle (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.
B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.
While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
........blah blah.........
Proposal (Born2cycle)
Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If WP:INVOLVED means anything (Tony having admitted himself that he is involved wrt user), then not only should it bar Administrators from blocking, but also from being the supposed summarisers and chief drivers of the direction of their own AN/I reports where they declare involvement, perhaps even to bar them from filing such reports if they cannot be constrained to simple matters of fact.
It is very easy to understand why people feel there is a bullying culture in Wikipedia Administration, when you see the lack of care here toward the principles of impartiality and due process. Nothing about this at all suggests Tony sees his role as a mere janitor, just the person who pushes the block button. The mention of Arbitration seems a clear case of casting aspersions and poisoning the well.
Obviously he wants his participation here to be seen as merely a concerned citizen, taking his Administrator hat off due to his involvement (at least I hope he does), but it is frankly impossible to do so when you realise, the only element of this report that has nothing to do with his potential prejudices, is the fact the user perhaps made too many comments in a debate, and called someone a jerk, but even then, in both cases, these things happened in response to things Tony did to the user, so are tainted for the purposes of being judged, as having likely been the results of his prejudice.
Even if the user absolutely deserves to be banned from Wikipedia based on a cold reading of their record, it is precisely because of the shortcomings of people like Tony, that they always leave with the distinct impression they have been bullied off the project.
![;)](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="15" height="17"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg> "Wink")
(That steward with that horny blink 