Buzybeez
Buzybeez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
unjustified
Decline reason:
See below. The community seems to be unwilling to flatly unblock you, but you can be unblocked if you agree to a topic ban. Request declined for now, pending your response. Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I seemed to have been blocked for disagreeing with an edit made by an admin who is being reviewed for a massive amount of controversial edits[1] After updating a page with verifiable information from a governmental source, it was quickly reverted by the above admin and my account was blocked. Is editing pages with verifiable information grounds for blocking? Yet all of these [2] are permitted? If so, then I must be confused about wikipedia policy and would appreciate administrative review and reply for clarification. Thanks.Buzybeez (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed some of your recent edits, and I don't see anything that would warrant an indefinite block. I am going to contact the blocking administrator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Mike here, an indef block with no warning is not something that should be done often outside of sockpuppets. All I see is mainly anti-vandal work, and one, just one, revert of JzG in all of march which he had a conflict with in the past on the same article. Kwsn-pub (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- In deference to a fellow admin, I will not unblock yet, but I also would like to see his evidence. Unless it can be shown that this is, for example, an abused multiple account, I see no readily obvious evidence in the recent contribs that shows a block was needed. Lets see what Nick has to say, but I would endorse an unblock here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- He already responded on his talk page: "Yeap, the persistent disruption and reversion of the article on the St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. It's one of those bogus universities, but Buzybeez persists in asserting it's a fully accredited and recognised university." I don't see Buzybeez as a single-purpose account (though he is indeed interested in the article). There seems to be some amount of sock- or meatpuppetry in the article; on the other hand, JzG's edits of the article don't look quite right, either (though he has a point). See the talk page of the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies Mike, Kwsn, and Jayron. The admin who banned me posted on his talk page that he did so because of "the persistent disruption and reversion" [3] of an article. Unfortunately, the article in question has been WP:OWN'ed, and the majority, if not all, of the editors who provide verifiable information that is in disagreement with the "owners", get banned, such as myself. Is there any way to prevent this from continuing? Buzybeez (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note that this user was, in fact, classed as a single-purpose account dedicated to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Under the terms of the relevant ArbCom case, I restricted this account to 1RR, in lieu of a topic ban, for single-purpose disruption on that article ([4], since removed from this talk page by Buzybeez). He has branched out into vandalism reverts, but as best I can tell his content edits remain focused on the St. Christopher. He has been warned and restricted in the past, under the terms of a directly relevant ArbCom decision, though he has removed all trace of this from his talk page. No comment on this indefinite block, as I have not reviewed recent events, but there is a history here which ought to be taken into account, though it appears to have been obscured. This is by no means coming out of the blue. MastCell Talk 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to emphasize, there have been major problems on this particular article with single-purpose sock/meatpuppets disrupting the article by attempting to remove verifiable but unfavorable information about the school. The ArbCom decision (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/St_Christopher) addressed this by permitting sanctions against such accounts. MastCell Talk 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note that this user was, in fact, classed as a single-purpose account dedicated to St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Under the terms of the relevant ArbCom case, I restricted this account to 1RR, in lieu of a topic ban, for single-purpose disruption on that article ([4], since removed from this talk page by Buzybeez). He has branched out into vandalism reverts, but as best I can tell his content edits remain focused on the St. Christopher. He has been warned and restricted in the past, under the terms of a directly relevant ArbCom decision, though he has removed all trace of this from his talk page. No comment on this indefinite block, as I have not reviewed recent events, but there is a history here which ought to be taken into account, though it appears to have been obscured. This is by no means coming out of the blue. MastCell Talk 20:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I just want to note that the first impression I got from some of the messages here was that JzG had blocked this user. Maybe that's my own speed-reading-comprehension failing, but I'll point it out anyway: it's Nick's block. — Athaenara ✉ 20:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite prepared to unblock this chap myself, with the sole proviso that he doesn't ever edit St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or any other of these bogus university articles. He can revert vandalism until the cows come home, I've no complaints with that at all. Nick (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's fair, I'd say. There's an arbcom restriction in respect of that article, and just about every editor whose first edits have been there, has turned out to be a disruptive editor interested mainly in special pleading on behalf of what every independent source identifies as a sub-standard institution. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Topic ban endorsed. Buzybeez, we will unblock your account when you acknowledge that you have read and understood the above restriction. It may also be of interest to you to read the Arbitration Committee ruling on this particular article, which authorizes administrators to place such restrictions on users due to similar problems in the past, including direct involvement by the Wikimedia Foundation. Admins, please note that as well - this ban will need to be logged on that case page if this user is unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not happy with this resolution. As I have said, I don't consider this user to be a single-purpose account, and don't find it fair to demand him to permanently stay away from this and similar articles under the pain of an indefinite block. JzG has his point; however, so does this user: to have an article say an exact opposite of what the linked page says makes no sense. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse the topic ban solution. Buzybeez is not a typical SPA, but if you look carefully through his edits, the only ones of any real substance are to this one article. He has a series of vandalism reverts and in the case of a few other articles like Eczema he has a number of contributions but all minor cleanup. And he has surely been tendenitious at the disputed article. I think it is likely that this account was created for the purpose of editing St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, and these other edits were done to legitimize the account to try to avoid sanction under the arbcom ruling. I don't know that this is the case, of course, but even if it's not true, given the tendenitious nature of the edits, a topic ban is warranted. (Plus, that article really should be under general Article probation, not just with a proviso specific to SPAs.) Mangojuicetalk 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- My edits involve 1- verifiable references, 2- are discussed on the talk page in a civil manner, and 3- I have never extended personal insults or expletives. Also, I was placed on 1RR about 7 months ago, when I was new to WP and understandably not familiar with the policies, and have not overstepped that 1RR in the past 7 months. I'm not sure what part of the above justifies an indefinite (topic) block? Am I misunderstanding or not aware of some WP policy? Also, not that I should have to explain why I continued to edit that article, but it is to keep it balanced, as there seems to have been many adamant POV-pushers (for the better and worse).
note to JzG
editYou included 2 corporations for the college that are in liquidation, and mentioned that the only active corporation associated with it has "vanished." [5] Using your link for the former, the vanished corp appeared (Company No. 063554530)Buzybeez (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)