Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson

message: I want Iasson to stop spamming the VfD votes with comments which proport to represent voting policy, but which in fact do not, and which might mislead new voters.  Vote on the VfD, and explain your reason for voting that way; don't abuse the VfD page by constantly filling it with new ideas for how votes themselves should be taken. Jayjg  | (Talk) 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related to Iasson's poll 

message: Iasson's disruptive votes are starting to splatter.  He's made a couple on WP:FAC -- ,  -- a place where the voting procedure is much better-defined than on VfD.  I don't think he's doing this to try to change policy anymore; I think he's just trying to be disruptive. --Carnildo 00:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Splatter

message: Where to go is simple. I think it was Rickk who mentioned the harshly worded, but overall correct method. There is consensus that Iasson should stop the disruptive behavior. So therefore, if he continues with it, a short ban is in order for the first time (maybe even only a couple hrs), then double the length of the ban for each similar disruptive vote.  Since Iasson has stopped making the disruptive votes for now, that policy seems perfectly workable.  He won't be banned at all as it stands now.  But problematic edits will lead to increasing bans. Seems like a perfect solution to me: no problems->no action; disruptive edits->decisive action. - Taxman 19:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) For the record I'm fine with the first ban being 24 hrs in light of recent evidence. - Taxman 13:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Sounds appropriate to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Would a vote be approprate at this point?  I support the above, as this has gotten out-of-hand, as Iasson has shon that he will not stop his disruptions, even in the face of overwhelming consensus.  To satisfy the policy here, the vote is a simple support or do not support, with rough consensus in 3 day's time the goal.  And Iasson, you can't vote in it; it's your punishment we're discussing here. The prisoner does not get to choose his jailer. hfool/Roast me 03:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support ...but I think Taxman's suggestion of setting the first ban at a couple hours is much too low.  If somebody banned me for 2 hours, I doubt I'd even notice.  24 hours should be the minimum, to give him time to cool down at least.  Also, I think the specified action should be taken for ANY disruptive activity by Iasson, not just wierd VfD votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Eh, if we're voting, then I support. As Iasson has not made any of his disruptive votes in the last few days (aside, perhaps, from this RfC), let's hope he will respect the community consensus and work towards improving the encyclopedia in other ways. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 03:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RickK/Taxman's Proposal

message: Someone has registered the user Lasson, which based on the similarity to Iasson (initial L vs initial I - I am not the only person to have mistakenly read the latter for a lowercase l) and the contribution history  leads me to suspect that they are the same person. If I am correct, any action taken against Iasson should take this into account. Thryduulf 13:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: The following is another examples of Iasson's behaviour:
*  A vote about the content of the Same sex marriage article, posted on the 10th December.
(comment posted by User:Thryduulf)
In addition to Kuro5hin mentioned above, he also seems to have been kicked off here. (Edits here, use the Google cache links). Anybody out there still assuming good faith? sjorford:// 18:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: further examples

message: This shows that Iasson has set out to troll Wikipedia.  There no longer needs to be a discussion on the subject.  Time to ban him.  RickK 00:05, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Agreed.  His comments on this RfC are also degenerating quickly.  Complaining of deletionist cabals and calling other user edits stupid...the best thing to come from this RfC was a lengthy bit of evidence-gathering.  And some of those anon edits below looked so good too at times. hfool/Roast me 02:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule]]

message: Does the new section title "Tyrannical majority claims all the time belongs to them. Proposition of a time splitting decision rule." remind anyone else of Timecube? --Carnildo 21:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Timecube

message: User:Faethon37 looks to be bragging on his Clueless newbies entry (hist).
Is he blockable right now as a sockpuppet of User:Iasson? --Deathphoenix 14:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faethon37 on Clueless newbies 

message: More antics by the founder of Project Plausible Deniability can be seen (appropriately enough) on the Vandalism article and its Talk page. Perhaps it's time to bring out the big sticks, because talking seems to be ineffectual. --Calton | Talk 04:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Return of Grecian Footwear