User talk:BruceGrubb

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

Hello

Bruce, we have never directly crossed paths or corresponded to the best of my knowledge. I happened to notice your two editing restrictions on the list of restrictions (when I was reviewing my own). I read over the incident reports at AN, and I think you may have a case for a modification of your ban restrictions as follows: 1) The scope of your ban from all Christianity-related topics is overly broad. There is scant evidence of problematic editing across the category of Christian articles broadly construed. Therefore, I suggest you consider asking for the ban to be narrowed to the two articles on Christ Myth Theory and Josephus on Jesus. 2) Similarly, a ban from all fringe theory-related topics is overkill. This could be constrained to the single article where the problem occurred - Conspiracy Theories. You may also want to consider asking for the following changes: 1) 6 months probation to prove you can comply with your modified ban restrictions, and 2) a 1RR editing restriction in place of a T-ban. I suggest you appeal your bans directly to WP:BASC. No need to reply. Good luck. Ignocrates (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for continued ban evasion and sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, honestly, it is extremely hard, bordering on impossible, to imagine why you think you aren't kind of easily identifiable at this point. Being blocked for a year in no way adds to your credibility, either here in the future or, presumably, in the outside world. If anything, it reduces it dramatically. I don't think anyone is necessarily completely averse to seeing you return to active editing, provided you can maybe abide by the terms of editing. And nothing whatsoever is gained by either you or your cause by placing yourself above site policies and guidelines. You've got a year now to basically make your case for your opinions. Make the most of it and spend the time you might consider spending socking here making your case at the end of the year. That would be the logical thing to do. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]