Revision as of 01:20, 23 July 2007

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. (see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

It has been established that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive or block / ban-evading sock puppets and has been blocked indefinitely as a result. See block log, list of puppets.

Archives

User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 1 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 2 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 3 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 4 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 5 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 6 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 7 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 8 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 9 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 10 User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 11

Injustice

This is ridiculous. You have blocked TJ Spyke indefinetly. Maybe, a one month band, but you blocked him indefinetly. All you should be ashamed of yourself. Yes I'm talking to the admins to! THis man contributes to WP so much. If you read all of our talk pages for the WWE PPV's and the wrestlers on them, you'll see that he is one of the very few that keeps his temper and still keeps order. I can't believe this. Blocking him for the 3RR? Are you kidding me? Even the "sock puppetry". I mean this is truly unjustice. If I could I would take the block for him. -- Kings bibby win 20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Even the guy who created WP:ADOPT has been blocked. Blocking established users if and when they step out of line is appropriate. If a cop sells drugs, should we let them off the hook bacause they've arrested criminals in the past? Of course not; if anything you treat them more harshly because they know better than anyone else. Anyway, if it makes you feel better I'm about to file a report on WP:AN/I to see if the block is endorsed by the admins. The Hybrid 17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of TJ Spyke. The Hybrid 18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial proposals

Please see my comment here. Thanks, — thesublime514 • talk • 05:48, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand

I saw him report you to the admins for a violation of the 3RR, which you didn't violate. If you give me a direct link, I can try to back you up, since Shrek boy seems to have Rob with him. I'd hate to see you get another temp ban. You're a vital part of the WikiProject. Gavyn Sykes 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on his talkpage: User talk:BlueShrek#WWE One Night Stand (if it's another link you mean, let me know). TJ Spyke 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you had meant Rob was pushing for the administrators to punish you for a 3RR you didn't violate. That's the link I meant. I found it a while back, but lost track of it. Gavyn Sykes 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just figured id let you know that if you and Gavin try to gang up on me ill report you both.BlueShrek 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• sighs* You may want to read the rules a bit more throughly. You're misinterpreting a fair few of them.Gavyn Sykes 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to help BlueShrek, even pointing him out to WP:VANDAL after he accused me of vandalism (even though content dispute is not vandalism) and threatened to report me when I hadn't done anything. TJ Spyke 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to adopt him and teach him the rules. Gavyn Sykes 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested that, and apparently you did too. He acts like he doesn't need one, and he seems really familiar with how some things work on WP (reporting a user) but not others (what is considered vandalism, removing sources from articles). TJ Spyke 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I didn't violate it on Victory Road (I haven't had more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period). I didn't violate on ECW (check the edits themselves. I didn't revert more than 3 times, I just added a citation needed tag). The ONS one is really shaky at best since the issue had been resolved (the problem was this new user wanted proof that one person was on the poster, and I provided them proof). TJ Spyke 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I specifically didn't use "3RR" in my block reason as I hoped to avert (rather unsuccessfully, I see) the kind of comment you made above. I am more than aware that you did only revert three times in a couple of those cases, but you were revert-warring regardless. You neared the four reverts on multiple occasions and attempted to game the system by making similarly disruptive edits instead. From WP:3RR:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

Given your extensive block record for 3RR violations, I'm using my discretion here and blocking you accordingly. The purpose of the 3RR was not to prevent people from making four reverts in twenty-four hours, but rather to prevent people from edit-warring. I see it has not yet accomplished that in your case. Additionally, I only looked through your recent contribution history; it's worrisome enough that I was able to find so many instances of edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the ONS article, I believe that in the technical sense, he did not violate the rule, though at a first glance it may appear that he did. This other user Blue Shrek refused to accept proof that his info on the poster was correct, despite a provided source, which caused TJ to revert the article again. However, it was not an identical edit to the last three reverts, as the next was different. Gavyn Sykes 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that while the issue is now dead, TJ is wrong. He is trying to say that He provided proof of someone being on the poster but he provided proof for someone that wasnt being disagreed upon. We all knew it was Lashley. The ban is just as its the 3 RR not the 4RR and he did violate it and TJ I hope you take time to read over the rules and Regs.BlueShrek 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Shrek, if the issue is dead, why don't you stop beating a dead horse?, thank you. Bmg916 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The three revert rule specifies that you are not to revert the same instance of an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period, Shrek. If you read the above admin comment, the 3RR isn't what he is being blocked for anyway (though both of us were under that impression). Gavyn Sykes 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueShrek just doesn't seem to like me, and seems to be an angry person in general. Someone sent me an e-mail saying he's now accusing me of being a sockpuppet, I can't reply in the discussion though since my block doesn't expire for another few days. Some of the "evidence" is flimsy at best (the fact that I USED to use "Mr. Kennedy" as a username on a messageboard, a messageboard that I haven't even visited in over 3 months, which this other user has as a MSN username. Rob even admitted that Kennedy is a very popular wrestler, so of coarse a lot of people will use his name.) TJ Spyke 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, typical Misplaced Pages day. TJ Spyke, once again, gets blocked for violating the 3RR. BlueShrek will continue to hate him. Administrators will continue to bring back all of TJ Spyke's past 3RR breaking, which they use as a testimony. (sigh) I wonder why admins block TJ Spyke for helping Misplaced Pages, but they don't block supposedly "good faith edits" by users who continue to revert all our edits every pay-per-view?. It's a shame though. Spyke hang in their. I understand your frustration. I'll talk to the admin for you. -- Kings bibby win 06:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard

Please see the discussion there. Moreschi 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, being an idiot; you can post your responses and thoughts here, and I'll copy them over to there. Or, if you wish, I can unblock you just so you can participate in that thread, though please not anywhere else. Moreschi 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I am going out in a little bit and don't have time to come up with full reply yet, I will keep this brief for now. First, being allowed to revert only once per week for a year seems like a pretty harsh punishment. On those articles I was listed as edit warring on, I wouldn't exactly call it that. On the TNA Victory Road article, we seemed to have had a compromised version (I didn't think the match tagline should be mentioned at all while Rob wanted to mention it, so I came up with a version that mentioned in without giving it its own line), which went unobjected for over a week before an IP changed it to imply the tagline was the match type, and went I changed it back to the compromised version Rob just reverted it back (I should point out that Rob seems to reject any compromises on any articles, as evidenced by him causing the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article to be locked for almost 2 full weeks and being the ONLY one involved who refused to participate in mediation, eventually a compromise was reached after he stopped joining in the discussion all together. He also refused to compromise on the WWE One Night Stand and SummerSlam (2005) articles. As for One Night Stand, the new user (BlueShrek) did not want to discuss the issue at all on the talkpage of the article, threatened to report me to an admin (this was after the first time I reverted his edit) and insulting me, and even reverted after I provided him proof of what he wanted (he wanted a source that Bobby Lashley was on the ONS poster, and when I gave him a link right from WWE's website, he removed the edit even though my edit only mentioned Lashley). I wasn't try to sneak around 3RR, I thought I was in the right but I just didn't want to take a chance (but I still wanted to make it clear in the edit summary of what I thought).

I should also point out that the only block I agreed with was the first one (the page involved was about the character Baby from DBZ, see the lamest edit wars page for more detail). As for the others, the blocking admins pretty much said that I was right and that I should have just gotten someone else to revert. I always try to discuss the issue, but some people either refuse to discuss the issue or refuse to accept anything except how they want it. Even when I (and others) offer a compromise, they still revert. One last thing, why was BlueShrek not blocked at all even though he reverted 5 or 6 times on the same day for the ONS article?

BTW, this is not the last thing I have to say, I just don't have a lot of time right now. TJ Spyke 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop making false claims TJ. You refused MANY compromises on the list page, while I refused one mediation because of your attitude. I was told by an admin to avoid the page as much as I could: that's why I just "stopped joining in" the discussion. Get your facts straight, instead of assuming things just to make me look bad. I agreed with that compromise anyway, so get over yourself. Stop dragging my name in the mud with false comments. Admit your mistakes instead of pointing at everyone else and blaming them for your edit warring/reverting/3RR and so on. RobJ1981 05:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One "compromise" was the one that caused the page to be locked the second time (since all you did was remove the points from the table, and you claimed that was a sacrifice), the other created another table that wasn't too helpful. In both cases, there were others who disagreed. If you stopped because of an admin, maybe that's a good thing since we finally reached a version that everyone agreed on. Also, what about on the SummerSlam 2005 and TNA Victory Road articles where you didn't want a compromised version? TJ Spyke 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I can no longer edit, here is what I have to say. I am willing to accept a 1 month ban and 6 month revert parole. I have never tried to harm WP and have never vandalized WP, and have always tried to help improve articles (which sometimes led me to getting in a revert war with someone who's edit was not helping the article). I just don't think that my punishment should be discussed without any input from me (and think that Alkivar just has a grudge against me, since he is buddies with someone who openly hurts wrestling articles by blanking them under his misinterpretation of BLP, and Alkivar indef blocked me before for reverting a blanking AND sourcing that article. That block was quickly overturned since I was banned minutes after sourcing that article). TJ Spyke 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think I can interpret vandalism to my user page coming from Rochester, New York anything to help Misplaced Pages. It is now proven that you ran multiple sockpuppet accounts for the sake of deception, were block evading on multiple occasions, revert warred on multiple articles repeatedly (despite your promise to change) your ways, and now vandalism coming from your location is reported. I don't think there are many admins willing to do an unblock so you could continue this behavior. — Moe ε 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't me and I thought you would know it. I have never vandalized WP, the edits were made at a time when I am not even online (around 1PM ET according to your user page log). My IP is 65.37.60.195, and an admin can confirm this. I have never tried to hurt WP or any of the articles, and have tried to do the best I could to help articles, and I would never resort to vandalism (especially on the userpage of a user I respect, and thought respected me back). I don't recall promising to change before, but I do pledge to change now. Almost all of my blocks (except for like the first one) have been cases where an admin said that the article should have been reverted, but that I should have asked someone else to revert it rather than revert it myself. I am not sure how I can show I have changed (like you suggest on the Community Sanction page) though since I can only edit on this page, and I am not sure how I can proof that the IP who vandalized your page wasn't me (besides the fact that the edits were made at a time when I am never on WP and that I live in a pretty big city, it would be like assuming that an IP vandal from Jacksonville is you). TJ Spyke 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see block evading by using a sockpuppet as harmful to Misplaced Pages. You ignore your block, by using another account just so you can edit. That's both disrespectful and completely rude in my view. You didn't do vandalism under the other account: but that's not the point here. Being sneaky by block evading with another account still isn't justfied. Considering you've been caught with socks before, who can actually say you will never use a sockpuppet again? The IP that vandalized Moe's page wasn't confirmed (that I know), but the recent sock of Lrrr IV was. There is no excuse for using that sock. Respecting rules shouldn't be such a difficult thing to do. RobJ1981 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already talked to a couple of people, I have agreed to admit my mistakes and have accepted a proposed punishment (I don't want to discuss it unless the agreement is accepted by the admin who blocked me). I have used sockpuppets, but I swear that I wasn't the one who vandalized Moe's page (I have never vandalized any page on WP and wouldn't resort to something like that). TJ Spyke 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Accepting a punishment" isn't the idea. The idea of a community sanction is that you are told what will happen. There really isn't a choice. The Hybrid 11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that I won't try to sneak around it, or complain about it being unfair, etc. Basically I will admit my mistakes and take the punishment like a man. TJ Spyke 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I misunderstood you. Personally, I've had a change of heart. Once I've come up with the right things to say I'll try to get your block officially lowered to end on December 1st, like the final proposal at the CSN. Just a quick question though; have you discussed the things here with anyone in real life? No details are necessary. The Hybrid 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User page

Can somebody revert my user page? An IP vandal screwed it up and I can't do anything about it. TJ Spyke 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now some people are doing it to my talkpage, it's pretty annoying. I think they may be friends of that troll who kep reverting the WMIII attendance number (he has been proven to be a troll). The WMIII article seems to be semi-protected, so they can revert the page anymore. I think they may be his friends, because 3bulletproof16 pointed me out to a website that the troll belongs to where he complains about WP in general and me/bulletproof specifically. TJ Spyke 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, an IP changed my userpage into a redirect to this talkpage. Why? TJ Spyke 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just standard procedure. The Hybrid 11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Images

Hey TJ, Some idiot called user:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has deleted some great wrestling images (they were some moving pics of mankind falling of the heel in a cell, and him going throgh it0 located on the Hell in a Cell page. Now i have visited Jeffrey O. Gustafson's page and his account no longer is there. Could he be a vandal?

PS I own on of those pics so if you wont me to upload it please write back to me

Thanks, Donald Sutherland

Was that HIAC one the animate GIF? If so, that was from the WWE broadcast and not fair use. I suggest talking to the admin who deleted them. Also, some people don't type anything on their userpage (and thus it appears as a non-page). TJ Spyke 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Open at great American bash

I was wondering if it should be mention that these is the 4 Cruiserweight Open this year on the Cruiserweight section ? supermike

IMO, no. TJ Spyke 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)