User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Aug06

personal attack

there is an unnessesary personal attack to me in Armenian genocide talk page. "Using material from TAT is like a neo-nazi using material from stormfront on the Holocaust page. Eupator--Eupator 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)" [[1]]. sorry forgot to signneurobio 13:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

84.190.0.0/17

Hey. You blocked this last night. Now I nominated you for adminship so I know you're a good user, but please read up on blocking-related stuff. Your block was in good faith, but you actually blocked half of Germany. ;) I've undone it, so you may want to look at the IPs you wanted to block with it. :p Esteffect 00:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• That said, I think you inadvertently discovered a Mediawiki vulnerability. Some developers are saying your block shouldn't have even been possible due to the effects it can have. Esteffect 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Parkinson's Disease

InShaneee, thanks for the help with this article....we need many hands, as General Tojo is very persistent and seemingly has a lot more time than the rest of us. He also did some vandalism to user GeekPhilosopher's user page. Probably to PaulWicks as well, although Paul usually catches it pretty quickly. Thanks again..--Dan 19:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

whyyy?

why did u delete ????

WTF are you talking about? InShaneee 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tobias

I haven't looked into what happened in more details, but if at least a part of Tobias's block is based on his blanking of my user page and subsequent name calling of myself, I would urge you to shorten his block by at least that portion. Tobias had my permission to blank my user page if certain conditions we previously discussed were not met (yes, I no, it's all silliness), and the "name calling" was done in spirit of fun and friendship—I took no offense whatsoever. If I misinterpreted the situation and no part of his block is related to me, I apologize for bothering you. Please contact me should you have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. I regret his behavior.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

InShanee, I've just looked at Bad Eisenkappel more closely, and I don't quite understand why it was interpreted as disruption, let alone deleted altogether. It looks like a perfectly correct name to me; definitely a real place. I do agree that placing notes such as you described on other users' pages is not at all good sportsmanship, but it doesn't account for more than a few days worth of a block in my book. Sockpuppeteering is very serious, of course, but if "Bad" Eisenkappel was all he was blocked for, his behavior becomes much more understandable, although, certainly, not justified. Could you be so kind as to provide me with more background details behind this block, please? Am I missing something else that's also important? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, InShaneee! Tobias asked me to help him with this case, to which I agreed. I have crossposted the following summary at the talk pages of all involved parties. Please review and comment if necessary.

1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

Being a proud Wikipedia administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

a bit cruel to a newcomer like me

While users like Fadix and THOTH are around, I think you were a bit harsh to my reactions. There are more agressive discussions in that page, and I had a right to speak as much as them. After reading your comments I admire your neutral point to the subject, but while preventing to post POV to the site, you are also not counter acting to the existing ones. What about that stunning first image, and also what about the Turkish denial image Neuro points out ? I respect your position in this, even Fadix's current comments are disturbing. Also I would be happy if you posted to my talk page when this block ends. User : Sokrateskerem

Cculber007

Hi InShaneee!

I spoke with Cculber007 via email and he pledged not to make any threats or personal attacks on the wiki anymore if he is unblocked. I was thus thinking it would be a good idea to give him a second chance; he may very well one day become a valuable contributor. What do you think? -- Where 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes; I see what you mean. I spoke with cculber007 again, however, and he told me in a rather convincing manner that he would stop being uncivil. Maybe we can unblock him and put him on a probation of some sort? -- Where 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He also told me that if he were unblocked, he would listen to any warnings placed on his page. -- Where 04:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Were the incidents after 02:23 Tuesday July 4, 2006 UTC (when he said he would stop)? -- Where 20:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah; I didn't know that it was that bad. I agree with you then. -- Where 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Civility

Actually I dont think Fadix took my remarks negatively, just have a look at his reply here! lutherian 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

I've put this up on WP:ANI as I wish to avoid an unblock war [2]. All my further responses will go there. pschemp | talk 16:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted from my talk page, Ezhiki must have forgotten you. pschemp | talk 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I've noticed that you extended Tobias's block and labeled User:Hauke as a sockpuppet. I've been in contact with Tobias, and according to him Hauke is a friend of his. Please file a checkuser request if you have doubts; the results will be negative.

I would also like to reconsider your approach towards Tobias. I will agree any day that he may be stubborn, difficult to deal with, and lose his tempers easily, but he is not here to compromise Wikipedia, nor is he sticking to some malicious plan of sorts (please check his contributions history).

I spoke to Tobias last Friday, and promised to investigate what happened myself. From what I found the whole thing looks like a relatively simple misunderstanding, that gradually elevated to the exaggregated mess it is now. Let me outline the things the way I see them. Tobias definitely deserved a portion of his block, but not all of it.

I am crossposting the following summary to the talk pages of all involved parties.

1. The stub about Eisenkappl, which Tobias created, was deleted by User:Jimfbleak on June 30. Jim later explained that the deletion was due to the stub not providing enough information for a reader to understand what the stub's subject was. This is a valid reason, however, it was not explained in the deletion summary.
2. Tobias re-created this article and moved it to Bad Eisenkappel, making an inflammatory edit summary ("fight against admin power abuse...") in the process. While making a summary like this is not constructive, it should be understood that it was made in response to Jim's deletion, for which no reason was given.
3. Tobias later added a "this user is a deletionist" note to Jim's user page. Again, this was not very constructive; Tobias should have requested a reason for the stub's deletion instead of losing temper.
4. The new stub on Bad Eisenkappel was deleted by User:InShaneee. No reason for deletion was given in the edit summary.
5. InShaneee then blocked Tobias for 48 hours for "vandalism, personal attacks". When I asked for details, InShanee explained that Tobias was blocked for "disruption" and "for placing "this user is a deletionist" on other people's userpages". While the latter is true, the former referred to moving Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. While I see how such a move can be interpreted as intentional vandalism, the "Bad" portion is actually a part of this village's name, as a google search would attest.
6. At this point of time, the situation from Tobias's perspective looked very much like admin abuse—stubs he created were deleted by two different admins, both of whom gave no reasons for deletion. Tobias himself was blocked for "vandalism/disruption", the meaning of which was also not explained. This edit of Tobias's is a good illustration of the way he felt.
7. A moment later, Tobias was further accused of violating WP:POINT—no details provided.
8. Understandably, Tobias's aggravation grew.
9. InShanee protected Tobias's talk page in order to prevent him from removing the warnings and extended his block for incivility.
10. In response to his talk page being protected and his account being blocked, Tobias launched an anon IP campaign. While this was a direct violation of sockpuppeting guidelines, the user could not contend his block from his account as his talk page was blocked from editing at that point.
11. In response, Tobias's user page was protected from editing by User:Pschemp and his block was extended for sockpuppetry.
12. On July 2, User:Hauke account was created. Soon after it was labeled by Pschemp as a sockpuppet of Tobias and blocked. According to Tobias's email communication to me, Hauke is a friend of his, not a sockpuppet account. I asked Tobias to stop sockpuppetry on June 30, no matter how unfair the situation seemed to him, to which he agreed.

Summarizing the situation: while I in no way want to defend Tobias's less than stellar behavior in response to the accusations against him, I can see the situation from his perspective. Hopefully, this summary will allow you to do the same. I cannot, however, justify the behavior of the administrators involved in this case. Instead of trying to study the situation and finding out the cause of Tobias's aggravated response to the actions against his, the administrators pretty much reacted on emotion, thus complicating and elevating the situation, instead of trying to relieve it. Denying the user his right to contend his block by blocking both his talk and user pages is especially worrisome.

My opinion is that both sides largely ignored WP:AGF, refusing to listen each other. I thus urge the involved parties to shorten Tobias's block from unbelievable six weeks to a total of seven days (three of which he has already served) for not assuming good faith, for refusing to inquire about sanctions against him at the earlier stage of the conflict and resorting to inflammatory edit summaries, and for failure to challenge his block through legitimate means (such as placing an unblock template request at his user/talk page when it was still possible). I ask Tobias to apologize to the people to whom his was incivil. I also urge User:InShaneee, User:Pschemp, and User:Jimfbleak to apologize to Tobias for not providing the reason for their actions and to impose a self-block for refusing to assume good faith, for acting on emotions instead of reason, and for denying the user right to be heard through his talk page.

Being a proud Wikipedia administrator myself, I would not ask anyone to do something that I personally would not be ready to do in a similar situation.

Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my extensions was sockpuppetry which he clearly engaged in and was clearly told that that was the reason. Considering that he used multiple IP's for the the socks, it is quite easy for him to set up a new account with a different IP that would of course not show the same as his on checkuser. The new account also edited tango articles and used the same grammar as Tobias. I'm sorry, he used up his allotment of good faith quite a while ago and I will not change anything, nor will I apologize. I see you are his friend, but that doesn't mean his actions were appropriate. You forgot to mention his many other infractions up there, such as calling decent editors vandals, and his history of incivil remarks and personal attacks in edit summaries. Not to mention his blanking without archiving of most of his userpage and some civility warnings looks very bad. Sorry, but the facts are, use sockpuppets to evade block (which was originally short) your block gets extended. He had plenty of opportunity to use {{tl:unblock}} and has done so in the past, so your accusations of him being not allowed to contest the block are baseless. Also, he admitted to using the socks, so I see no reason to overturn the block. Just becasue you admit to your bad deeds doesn't mean that it nullifys your action. pschemp | talk 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Hudaybiya

InShaneee, may i ask why you deleted a article about a Islamic battle as a speedy? --Striver 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.

You ignored the bolden part, and that is what made me react. Could you please undelete the article? Having it deleted causes my "deleted edits" count to raised, even though i created a perfectly valid arctile. --Striver 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish Kurdistan and user:Behemoth

• 15:41, 1 July 2006 random accusations etc...
• 15:45, 1 July 2006 me pointing out policy against such comments got me this response...
• 02:30, 3 July 2006 no sign of improvement

I believe users actions warrant a warning which hopefully settle the issue before it escalates (something I intend to avoid).

--Cat out 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuck on the Beach

I guess you're the admin that protected the page. Unfortunately, they actually are a notable band per WP:BAND - they have released two full length albums ([3], ctrl+f for the name) on a very well-known and important independent record label - [4] gives a little on their history. Besides that, they have released a bunch of EP's. I guess the first versions of the page were pretty poor, but I think they clearly meet the notability requirements. Deleuze 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see this, so I'll add another reply here. Deleuze 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I just tried it myself and it worked. Unless you mean it doesn't say anything about the label? Well, it discusses them starting at the fifth paragraph. Deleuze 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Can you please take a look at what the anon poster is doing to Censorship, and maybe protect the page, or block him, or even tell the wiki-community that the guy may actually be right? Targetter 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also on this topic, a nominee for adminship has warned me about reverting this IP. I don't know, but it seems a tad strange. Dave 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility

yes you have a point. no more such things. Actually I and fadix had worse conversations before. We just had to close the deal for good.neurobio 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I wellcome any type of ban as long as Fadix gets the same. I have been incivil to some degree thats true if there is a consequence ok... I will not argue or defend. I just want you to see the aura which Fadix creates and turns every body around to werewolfes. Isn´t that amazing? I just want to add that I posted this massage to his talk page because he perviously accused me of talking behind his back so I just informed him. neurobio 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA and User:Fadix

I believe Fadix is again disregarding the NPA policy see: this. While I agree his counterpart, User:Neurobio, isn't being all that better, I am not certain if he has been warned about WP:NPA before. I have just issued a warning to Neurobio so his next offense is blockable. Thanks. --Cat out 12:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What Cool_Cat has been reporting followed started by this[5] I had no idea of what Neurobio was talking about so I decided to read what he had written by checking his contribution logs, to find out that he was possibly talking about this. [6] And here was my answer. [7] Which OK, might contain few elements which could be considered as offending. But he did admit of having lied, so for this oart at least, I am not attacking him, and given his reference to me while I was minding my own business and then going on my talkpage to place a note. What was he expecting that I'll do? Here is what Neurobio has answered. [8] following with my last replies. If you check neurobio contribution, you will see that I am not the only to whom he has posted stuff and got members infurieted, or his deletion of contents in his talkpage warning him.

Actually, I did not, I retracted, it was a mistake, I thought that the NPA was referring to me. Fad (ix) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Point me to the policy that says his next "offence" is blockable. If you think you can use the disruption section of WP:BLOCK, you'll have to explain how whatever he's doing disrupts the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or poses any kind of threat to it. The level of excessive personal attacks must be equally disruptive to that of inserting material that may be defamatory. I don't think any regular users (including Neurobio) make personal attacks of such gravity (it's questionable that they are personal attacks). Just my $0.02 - so as to prevent people going around yelling "admin abuse" after a few careless blocks are handed out (it happens). --Tēlex 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, keep your nose in your own business. I can investigate whatever situations are brought to me just fine, thank you, and I WILL you my own judgement when dealing with these matters. As to Cat, yes, I agree both of them were being incivil, thank you for warning them. If they continue, let me know. --InShaneee 16:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Words like keep your nose in your own business are incivil too. Fad (ix) 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing bad about his nose. He may in fact have a grand nose. I just want him to take it elsewhere. --InShaneee 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That statment was indeed incivil. Fad (ix) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but that does not change the fact that his nose did not be on my talk page, nor did any other part of him, if you want to get picky. --InShaneee 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus vote on sources for ND article

I would appreciate your vote on the source dispute for the Natasha Demkina draft. Thanks! Dreadlocke 19:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting! Can you tell me what the problem is with the Pravda.RU reference? Doesn't it meet sources of dubious reliability? Dreadlocke

In my opinion, no. As far as I've ever seen, Pravada.ru is simply a tabloid. --InShaneee 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, but even a tabloid can be a citable reference according to sources of dubious reliability. Or am I reading that wrong? Dreadlocke 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they are allowed in certain situations. However, I think there are other, better sources out there that can be used instead. If I'm wrong, I may be willing to rethink my vote. --InShaneee 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean! I've been searching for better references, so if you can help find some - that would be awesome. If we can't find any, then I hope the tabloid will do... Dreadlocke 20:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang, I forgot to list a disputed site, Natasha's own. I added it. Dreadlocke 20:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quick! Thanks! - BTW, would you like more detail on the Professor Brian Josephson critique? He's is a very notable critic of the CSICOP test and his information is key to the discussion of the test itself. It's the one reference that I really think should be added, and the reference that the primary-skeptic is most intent on keeping out. Here is part of the discussion where Professor Josephson discusses how the information on his website is part of his professional work at the University of Cambridge. Dreadlocke 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to find other better sources for the few quotes and visit to Japan that I pulled from Pravda.Ru (User:Dreadlocke/Sourced_from_Pravda.RU), but besides Iran Daily.com and ananova.com, nothing appears to be much more substantial than Pravda.RU. The information I sourced from Pravda isn't sensational, nor is it of a highly critical nature - it's just a basic description of events we know happened, so I'm hoping you'll reconsider your rejection of the source. Unless....you've found another source? Which would be totally awesome...! But, man, I've looked everywhere and can't find anything that wasn't sourced itself from the Pravda.RU articles. Thanks! Dreadlocke 01:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I may have found another source for the trip to Japan, the information is on Natasha's own website: [9], [10], [11]. Translator page can be found at: [12]. Dreadlocke 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

zim wiki

why did you remove the link to zimwiki?

---

Could you please tell me were the removel of this link was discuced?

Ass Ponys

I thought two major-label albums, several independent releases, and a charted single made Ass Ponys notable. Looking at WP:MUSIC#Musicians_and_ensembles, they also fall under the national concert tour, and featured in non-trivial published works categories. Do I need to state those additional facts in the article? Would you please consider undeleting the article? Hoof Hearted 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters Page

Please don't remove content and post notices without joining the discussion first. Thanks. LuckyLouie 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism noted in the article is sourced by the external links. LuckyLouie 02:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please drop a note in the

Don't you think there are better articles

Than Scientology to tell about the recent legal action against that website? You reverted it back into the article. But don't you think, upon examination, that it should go in Scientology and the Legal System or some related article? The reason there are so many articles is because Scientology involves itself in so many areas. Can't we, as editors, help the reader by presenting appropriate information in appropriate articles? Terryeo 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

==TALK== page at The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society to explain exactly which sentences you feel need sourcing. Thanks. LuckyLouie 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One Week block

Why did I get blocked for an entire week? That's way out of line. People were tormenting me, and I got blocked. And not just blocked but excessively. Humankind 04:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Children of the Sun (game)

Sorry to burst your bubble but there IS in fact mecha in the game. I've been trying to find the original larger picture but can't get a hole of it, however there is a smaller version on this review site which demonstrates that there is a form of mecha prevalent in the game: 1 Piecraft 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for getting back to me, try copy and pasting this address in your browser: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/games/sfw8770.html it should take you to the review article and if you scroll down you can see the image, or you can access the image here as well: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/images/games/children220020812.jpg or image. Piecraft 20:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll give you that, but the fact that Pollak has stated this game is dieselpunk which in essence is supposed to borrw the mindset/ideas relating to cyberpunk and to a greater degree steampunk, such creations would fall into an anachronistic form of Mecha, even if they are not war machines, they possess the same qualities which are stated in the mecha article "Bubblegum Crisis, the similar replicants of Blade Runner, and cyborgs can be referred to as mecha, as well as mundane real-life objects such as industrial robots, cars and even toasters. In Japanese, the term "giant robots" is used in the similar context that English speakers have repurposed the term "mecha."" Another examplification is the Iron Giant, even if The Harvesters are brought to life through magic they are monstrous mechanical forms, and there is no other word to define them, robots would indicate that they have robotics in their system, etc... it makes more sense to adapt the term "mecha", seeing as you stated they are salvaged from farming equipment and are mechanical in their structure and construct. Anyway I don't want to make a big thing out of it, I just thought it would be good to have a reference to it as a form of "other" mecha forms present in fiction. Piecraft 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Torn City Page Deletion?

Hi,

I am appalled that you deleted a page on the gaming subject Torn City which I spent three hours working on last night - is there any reason for this?

With kind regards, please restore this page. Jordanhatch 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

... wondering why these kind of pages get deleted without warning anyone? if at all posible i would like the information moved or sent to me at quacks[at]torncity.com or atleast undeleted and allowed that i can post a true summary of the game back up.

User:Paul Cyr nominated for adminship

You may be interested to know that User:Paul Cyr has been nominated for adminship. -- Gnetwerker 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You probably have more influence in these things that I. -- Gnetwerker 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I Don't believe this

I have good reason to recreate the page.

I have checked the deletion logs and realised why the page was deleted originally - with good reason. So with good intent, I decided to make it a real Wikipedia page with history and background of the game. I don't see why that should be deleted.

If it's the facts on the pages that you do not believe, then check the websites - otherwise I don't see what is wrong with the revised edition of the page.

Warnings

This isn't normal spoilers like for movies(which I think should be posted), this was about something that hadn't aired on TV. WikiProject Professional Wrestling has agreed that things like title changes shouldn't be posted before they air on TV, this user was told several times not to do that so I thought a warning might get him to start. I was not out of line to do that and I was justified in doing so. TJ Spyke 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I won't warn anyone else. Their edits though will be reverted though until it airs on TV. TJ Spyke 20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism???

Hi

Why did you remove something from my talk page?--Sa.vakilian 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean. He is my friend and maybe hi is a freind of others too?

I didnt know that informing my friends in matters concerning them is defined as spamming.

No problem. I shall never do it again:) --Zereshk 02:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you editing my talk page?

What gives other users to edit other users' talk pages? [13] Why don't you use your admin powers for something positive? --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See Shane?

The point you fail to see is that I just asked them to vote, that's all. Many of them vote against my position. But I just want their participation. And that's not vote stacking. Knowing you, I know you wont reverse your own decision. But anyway, for the record, you were wrong in deleting my posts.--Zereshk 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

But then again, I'll keep my promise and wont do it again, so that all will be happy:)--Zereshk 03:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep my tone civil? Did I curse or yell? Also is editing other people's talk pages a policy too? --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very rude Aytakin. Khejalat dareh! --Aminz 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane,

You can force your will on us, delete the article, or ban me, but what I did was not internal spamming, because I never know how my friends will vote. If you take a closer look, User:Tajik for example, actually did not vote for my position, and I am totally happy with that, because I just wanted his participation. So I think youre just trying to impose your decision on others. But then again, there's nothing I can do about it. So peace be to you bro.--Zereshk 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you, there is no respect for policy here. You should have just blocked him instead of giving him a warning he would just brush off and not take seriously.--Jersey Devil 03:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, common! You are talking as if someone doesn't know will think you informed editors who didn't have persian usernames (Tajik maybe an exception). Common, accept what you did. I personally don't think it was bad. You informed editors who have experiences of living both in Iran and west. They should have been informed. But by doing this, you violated Wiki policy. --Aminz 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz. Jersey Devil, blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't block people because they're jerks; we block people to stop them from violating policy. Zereshk's stopped spamming for the moment, and he's been warned. --InShaneee 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOCKING!!!!!!!!!! BLOCKING WHO! FOR WHAT?! --Aminz 03:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Aminz, I was thanking you for agreeing with me. The other part was just telling JD that I'm not going to block Zereshk right now, which he keeps insisting needs to be done. --InShaneee 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he did violate the policy. But that wasn't serious. I am thankful that he informed me of this. Blocking him, because of this is just "too" unfair. In response Jersey can inform several other editors. That's it. --Aminz 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, as they should be. My point is that he wasn't going to respect the warning and I was correct in that he didn't as can be seen from his response. Considering his long time here he should already know what the policy is. I am not saying that he should have been blocked "as punishment" but so that he will know for future periods not to violate wikipedia policy thus such a block would have been preventative and such blocks have been issued in the past. Anyway, there is nothing we can do now so there is no point in arguing it out. I just find it incredibly frustrating that some users are allowed to get away with this kind of stuff repeatedly without administrator action.--Jersey Devil 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, no I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right. Counterspamming is not a correct response and is disruptive to Wikipedia. I did the proper thing by simply reporting it on AN/I and I do respect the decision not to block regardless of my disagreement with it.--Jersey Devil 03:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He's not getting away with anything, and you need to assume good faith. He's never been warned about spamming before (I checked), and if he does it again, he will face the consiquences. Yes, reporting it to AN:I was the right thing to do, thank you. Aminz, I'm not blocking him for that, and no, Jersey can't spam people, either. Yes, it was 'serious' in the sense that he can be blocked for it. You don't break policy 'just a little bit'; if you break it, you've broken it, period. --InShaneee 03:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

my reply to Jersey : First of all, please note that if he was really dishonest (given his experience in wikipedia), he could have informed others via email. Let think about it this way: Everybody can inform whoever he/she wants. Fair, isn't it? Why should only those who check the AfD page be eligible to give their opinions on the articles? --Aminz 03:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Because that's what the policy says, and if you don't like it, I'm the wrong person to talk to (since I can't change it and I'm personally all for it). --InShaneee 03:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you dislike it then join the policy discussions to change the policy but one can't just counterspam regardless if in one's mind they think it is fair.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. --InShaneee 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time for that unfortunately. I know many who have a strong email network in wikipedia. This policy of spamming is kind of funny since it encourages people to be dishonest and turn to other kinds of communication. --Aminz 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Jeresy) No, Jersey. What do you achieve by reporting it on AN/I? You are ensuring that you and him will never become friends one day. It strikes me that for some reason, you want him get banned, otherwise your post to the AfD page was already enough; you know, this makes me more determined to defend his case as much as I can. --Aminz 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I report all violations to wikipolicy that I encounter on AN/I.--Jersey Devil 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it spamming to tell people you know about a vote being taking place on an article? What a load of rubbish! Kiumars 14:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me or not

Believe me or not, I've seen many who think Iran is all desert. Now I don't know what is the best name for that if not "misconception"? --Aminz 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article has lots of OR, true, but this only because the article is young. I'm sure many of them can be sourced. (since media talks much about Iran today ;) ) --Aminz 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Farsi Wikipedia

According to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise he is trying to attract votes from the Farsi language Wikipedia. [14] Obviously I (and probably you) can't read Farsi but the aforementioned user who understands it says that is what he is doing. He also commented on the section regarding the incident on AN/I. [15]--Jersey Devil 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the link I gave originally was broken. Now corrected above. It's in English, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We should check when this comment has been posted (i.e. after he was asked to stop spamming other pages, or before it.) Done I checked it. They were posted before he was asked to stop spamming other pages. --Aminz 06:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict... :-) ] It was apparently at 00:26 UTC tonight, i.e. before the warnings. Had to look up the Arabic numerals first... But in view of the history of similar offenses (which I believe he was warned about too), and in view of his unrepentant reaction afterwards (stating that next time he'd just do the same per e-mail to avoid detection [16]), I think it certainly is a significant detail. But thanks for your efforts for fairness on all sides, Aminz! Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Future Perfect at Sunrise, in Farsi we say: "Az molaghate shoma khoshbakht shodam" which means nice to meet you! My feeling is that the relation between Zereshk, InShaneee, Jersey Devil and you is already tense. I am a lonely passenger in the middle of a battleground. --Aminz 07:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove comments from my talk page

Hello Shane, Please don't remove comments from my talk page. It is against wikipedia guidelines and is considered vandalism, and you have been warned about this before by others.

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Shervink 10:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

I would like to note for people viewing this page that the user Inshaneee did not engage in vandalism, he removed internal spamming (per standard process) in the above user's talk page and this vandalism tag is completely unwarranted.--Jersey Devil 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the above statement by user Jersey Devil is incorrect. The statement in concern was on my talk page, and it was certainly not spam. I should know it since it is my talk page! Removing contents of talk pages is vandalism, and user Inshaneee has engaged in such vandalism before, as seen on this page. Shervink 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

As a matter of fact, the policy regarding vandalism explicitly says that removing comments from talk pages is vandalism, the only exception being the removal of personal attacks. This was not a personal attack, so removing it from my talk page was vandalism. (Even if your claim that it is internal spamming was correct!)

The page on spamming clearly says that "occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice", and does not identify spamming as vandalism, nor does it give people the right to remove it from talk pages in this manner. In fact, it suggests to the author to remove spams after the election is over!

In conclusion, Inshaneee, you have clearly violated policy and commited vandalism by removing those comments. Please realize your mistake and don't do this in the future.

By the way, I was not going to vote there anyway, and if I did, I probably wouldn't vote to keep it in this way. So you are wrong if you think it was orchestrated to promote a certain agenda. One more reason that it was not actually spamming. Shervink 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

• InShaneee , talk page is a personal/private page, it is not an article that you go and revert! I want to know what people want to tell me on my talk page. Stop deleting messages on my talk page, it is a very rude and uncivil act.Kiumars 14:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While this is all very interesting, spamming talk pages to advertise AFD discussions is not permitted and InShaneee's actions were correct. AFD is a consensus, not a vote. BigDT 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you're wrong. The policy explicitly says that removing talk page contents is vandalism, and it does not state spams as an exception to that, Therefore, (even) removing spams from other people's talk pages is vandalism. If you think it is not, show me exactly (quote) which policy allows editors to remove spams from other people's talk pages. The fact that spamming is a violation of policy does not mean that you can stop it with another violation of policy!Shervink 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

I also was not happy with a removal of somebody else's comment from my webpage!--Ali doostzadeh 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you don't need to be happy with it for it to be right. --InShaneee 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You revert of edits Teen Titans (TV series)

Please note that while my comments were harsh, the article shouldn't have to suffer for them. Your revert positioned the "fact" back in a place which, quite frankly, makes it more unsightly than usual. Furthermore, direct links or redorects are both acceptible forms of wikification. Changing the link from "Amerime" to the article name is unnecessary. Due to these concerns, I have have your revert of my edits to be invalid and shall swiftly revert it, in turn, now. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a lame edit war. Please pack it in, the pair of you, neither of you are right, nor are either of you wrong. I don't want to pick a version, work it out without edit warring. Steve block Talk 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk's block

Hi InShaneee,

Since you were involved in Zereshk's case, it would be better to leave the decision to a third admin. 'Please' unblock him and ask another admin who hasn't been involved in this case to have a look at his case. Thanks --Aminz 19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, First of all, I think 48 hours is too long. Secondly, When you first raised the penalty of blocking for Zereshk, I was completely surprised. I felt it was too soon for such a decision (or even mentioning that). Zereshk's case wasn't too tense as I percieved. His last post to Sa.Vakilian still bothered me too, but I feel your judgment (48 hours block) doesn't suit what he did. Furthermore, *I*'m sure this block will not be a constructive one for wikipedia (because he will never do this anyway; and we all know many people, including some admins, are using *secure* communications). It is important to note that Zereshk was civil, didn't vandalize anything, etc. etc. I've seen people vandalize a page for a couple of time, they are warned for a couple of time, but then the penalty are imposed on them at the very end. InShaneee, I am not an admin. But if I were, I would have disputed the block (or at least its length). Still I have some objections to the policy that Zereshk violated itself. --Aminz 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I know we have had our problems but i didn't do this [17]. I think you should keep a civil tone and don't accuse people for no reason. I hope we can just put this whole problem aside. And I'm asking the following with no tone or in any harsh way and for my own curiosiy. Why are you so determined to delete that page? No hard feelings. --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And what about [18]? --(Aytakin) | Talk 21:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, Excuse me, [19] is comment made by "Steve block" and not by Aytakin!!!!!!!! Am I reading the usernames mistakenly? --Aminz 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:(

InShaneee, I haven't had much experience with both you and Zereshk before this. InShaneee, Are you interested to see my saddest and loneliest experience in wikipedia: [20]. Enjoy it. Nobody even payed a tiny bit of attention to me for my call of just looking into your "light" punishment imposed on Zereshk.--Aminz 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

May I remove your comments from my talk page so that I may feel a bit better of what I see but can't do anything about? --Aminz 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CCulber007 again

It has been almost a month since CCulber007 has been banned. He has assured me that he will not violate WP:NPA or WP:NLT again. I figure that if we lift the ban, we have nothing to lose; if he acts up again, then we can always ban him again. And we may have a valuable Wikipedia contributor to gain. Thus, I think we might want to give him another chance; after all, people are dynamic creatures, and frequently learn from their mistakes. What do you think? Cheers, -- Where 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will do so. 70.18.81.10 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

response to your question

Hi, InShaneee, you asked at Jersey Devil "How exactly does one prove that they're not in the cabal?" Here's my answer. For one, by not acting like Misza13 and his supporters did when I opposed his rfa. (The one opposition). If you check it out and then check out the threat that was made to me on my page, you may be a bit disconcerted. I will admit that JerseyDevil did not act like Misza13 did, at least. Still too many clique votes for me. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, InShaneee, thanks for your note on my page. I do think that the candidates qualifications are important in ordinary circumstances. I don't think that these are ordinary circumstances. There is something strange going on here. I have seen rfas that did not have the flavor that they have now. Jersey Devil didn't do what Misza13 did in reaction to my vote of opposition. Maybe this is not the same kind of thing, not sure. From what I have seen of this editor I don't care for his style and don't particularly trust him anyway. How come you don't say anything about the way I was threatened with fallout if I didn't change my vote. Don't you find that kind of intimidation ultra strange? It's sounds like somthing that comes from a dictatorial beaurocracy to me. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

?

Okay, InShaneee, I'll admit I don't understand what the hell you are trying to say to me or why. You are threatening me with fallout now? What do you mean by fallout? Why don't you just come out and say what's on your mind. None of this makes sense. In any case how is one oppose vote going to affect 132 support votes? The way I feel about these things is how I feel, anyhow. I won't be intimidated into changing my vote. If you want to block me now, go ahead, I can't stop you. I was pretty clear about why I voted the way I did. The more coercive objection I got to my vote, the less I wanted to change it. If you feel a need to throw your administrative power around now there's not much I can do about it. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my harshness. I do have a temper sometimes. No hard feelings and peace. Shannon^{duck talk} 09:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DUDE!!!

What are you doing? Son of a Peach 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

=DUDE!!! AGAIN!!!

WTF? You deleted WP:RD?MISC. Son of a Peach 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You said it was cross namespace. WP: redirecting to Wikipedia: is not cross-namespace. And for some reason, I have a problem with you. Sorry. I don't know what it is about you that bugs me. It's just...whatever. Son of a Peach 18:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop fragmenting

When I leave you a message on your talk page, respond to it there. I don't like doing the Talk Pgae Shuffle to keep up with a conversation. Son of a Peach 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Now, as I said, disrespect is not tolerated here, and if you continue, you will be blocked again. --InShaneee 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi, I just notified some users about a couple of polls I thought they'd find interesting. I thought it was OK to notify users as long as you don't do it in a way that tells them what to vote. Should I reword the message? I am sorry if I bordered violation of a rule I am not aware of (did I?}. Please point me to it, so that it doesn't happen again. Also, about ManiF's comment, I guess I came second in commenting on his arguments, not the user himself...:NikoSilver: 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I read the part also under "The following guidelines for cross-posting have wide acceptance among Wikipedians", and it doesn't seem I've violated any of this. I've also examined closer my messages to ManiF, and it seems that despite the fact I was rather pissed off of him taking me to WP:RFCU, I didn't actually curse on him. I just said his actions were funny, trollish, and pointy (which they were).:NikoSilver: 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call him a troll. I called his actions trollish, after I had received the same characterisation out of the blue. His actions were indeed trollish, pointy and funny. Now on the other issue, why does the policy go on to say under which contexts it is allowed to send multiple messages? Is the policy confusing, or am I missing something? :NikoSilver: 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose you think that him taking me to RFCU in the first place was not trollish or pointy or funny? Did you read admin Aldux's comment there? I was quite civil, despite the circumstances. :NikoSilver: 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right about saying that 3 apparently distinct users may be socks? You must know there is a whole history behind this, and he was already certain that that wasn't the case. Also, it seems he ommitted quite a few other users that had the same behavior. In any case, the only thing this issue has achieved, is taking our time. This is disruption. I won't argue anymore about it, InShaneee. Let's leave it at that, and I'll try not to give excuses for such warnings in the future. But you must admit that this is a grey-area. Ok? :NikoSilver: 22:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. He already knew, because in quite a few instances we've crossed our paths. Now about spamming, I won't notify others in voting again, but I seriously doubt that is the content or intention of the policy, which must be rewritten anyway to clarify what you just wrote on my page: If you are involved in the debate, you aren't allowed to notify people. I find it hard to understand how dozens of polls that I have seen, were attended by users who found out because they were interested on the content. I myself (and I am sure you too) have received many messages notifying me for a poll, which I do not find bad in any way, as long as the notification is not biased. :NikoSilver: 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism on my talk page

Dear Shane, as for other users, it is up to them to complain or not when you remove messages from their talk pages. In case of my page, I would like to ask you not to remove other people's messages, even if you think it is spam. There is no guideline on wikipedia to support your action, as I explained before, and if you think there is, please show me the quote. You are not obliged by policy to remove the message so I ask you not to do it. If you cannot support your actions with the guidelines then you are in violation of those, and I warn you not to repeat that in the future. Shervink 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

---

InShaneee see below my reply to the message you left on my talk page stating: Firstly, talk pages are as public as anything else on wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, anyone can edit them too. Secondly, removing spam not only is policy, but has been as long as you remember. If you don't like it, complain to someone else. --InShaneee 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Re: talk pages are as public as anything else on wikipedia. If you haven't noticed, anyone can edit them too.

People reading Wiki I am sure are intelligent enough to realize that User Talk pages are not Wiki articles and these are only a means of communication between the members. Civilized users edit the page to add their comments to the page not deleting other people’s posts!

• Re: If you don't like it, complain to someone else.

Who should I complain to? Give me a name please. Who is in charge in Wiki? Kiumars 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee is wrong. Editing other people's talk pages for reasons other than leaving comments is generally considered vandalism. There are a few exceptions, but removal of internal spamming is not one of them, you can read it yourself on the policy page. Moreover, you can read yourself that removal of internal spamming is not a policy of wikipedia. Internal spamming is by the way not identified as vandalism. Shervink 12:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)shervink

Report at WP:AN/I

Hi, InShaneee. Since you were the one who blocked Robsteadman indefinitely, I think I should bring this report to your attention. He came back as Robertsteadman, was blocked when he refused to say if he was the same user, and was then unblocked and put on probation. I'm afraid he has continued the same pattern of hysterical abuse. A new user called Neuropean, who is probably Count Of The Saxon Shore, with whom Rob had been in dispute, nominated for deletion an article he had created, and since then, Rob has been on a personal vendetta, filing RFCUs and RFIs, showing up at all the articles that Neuropean was editing, while continuing to insult him. Neuropean made a plea for him to stop, saying that he suffers from depression and that Rob was making it worse, and Rob just carried on. Neuropean has now left. His behaviour was certainly not impeccable, but it does seem certain that Robert was wiki-stalking him, and hurling insults at him (sockpuppet, vandal, stalker), and that it just got too much for him. Although I personally find Rob(ert) to be an extremely abusive and disruptive editor, I believe that I have always behaved with fairness towards him, voting to keep his article,[21] removing a taunt after his sockpuppetry was discovered,[22] removing evidence of his sockpuppetry and of his indefinite blocking from the talk page of his article[23] [24] (since it probably wouldn't be very nice for him if someone — maybe one of his students — looked up the composer Robert Steadman, and found out what his history on Wikipedia was), and on several occasions reverted vandalism or harassing messages from his user or talk pages, and asked other editors to leave him alone, despite the fact that throughout all of this, he was making hysterical accusations against me as well as against numerous others.

I feel that I should have acted more quickly, because when I saw the accusation that Rob was wiki-stalking Neuropean, I took a quick look at the contributions of both editors, and it seemed to be true, but I was involved with making other posts, so I put off doing something about it. I don't think Neuropean will be back, but I'd like to feel that this can't happen again with someone else. It was completely characteristic of the way Rob(ert) used to behave with people he had been in dispute with before he was indefinitely blocked. If you have time to look at my report, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. I know it can take a long time to read up about something that you haven't already been following fully. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please talk to user:Syrthiss who has more information - there is much more to this than the factually inaccurate acocount being posted around WP by Ann. Robertsteadman 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that I said that I wouldn't edit here again but I feel quite strongly that an indefinite ban isn't appropriate here.

• Robert isn't a vandal out to disrupt, he is just very opinionated and stubborn. Yes, he can be quite rude at times, but my experiences on Wiki lead me to believe that abruptness is not an uncommon feature. His problem has been that he is looking for cabals and conspiracies and, to a very small extent, he has been justified in this.
• Has he said sorry? Yes he has. Is he likely to do this again soon? No, I don't think so. I know for a fact that he can change for the better.
• He has only really overstepped the mark with me and I suppose I am a red rag to abull to him (although he sees me everywhere, even when it is not me. I have promised never to post on any forum where he is a member, so future suspicion shouldn't be a problem. I feel that if I hadn't AfD'd his article, he would have continued in his 'ways' but not gone OTT, so I would rather not see him blocked.
• I object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I have stalked him in real life, I don't know exactly what evidence he has presented in his private emails, but whatever it is has got to be wrong. But I suppose that he has found my behaviour annoying - the AFD may have been a WP:Point, but wasn't meant as a 'personal' attack. It went downhill from there.
• It has never been my attention to upset anyone - including Robert and I do not want to see him lose his hobby because of me. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I'm sure Robert will agree with me.
• I ask all concerned admins to give him one more chance. Blocking him will mean one less contributor and (although I still say that Moortje was an article crying out for a AfD,) he has made many positive contributions.
• His probation wasn't very specific. Instead of blocking him, I ask that he be given more specfic terms and he be held to those in his future actions. Any admin action should be based upon 'future' productivity and not past indiscretions. I think that's the whole point of Wiki.

That's all.Neuropean 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk vs Pecher

Could you please have a look at this. --Aminz 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Long time ago, Pecher made these comments:

1. [25]Also, Pecher has not explained yet what I need to learn according to his comment. If you can ask him to let me know what I should learn about my religion, that would be great.

2.[26]

I personally didn't consider it as "personal attacks", nor did [user:Tom harrison] (in the first case). Can you please let me know your opinion. Thanks

Tom harrison said, Pecher's first comment (i.e. "Nonsense. Aminz, please learn something about the religion to which you supposedly adhere before making these baseless arguments. There is more than the Qur'an and hadith that can be used to achieve consensus. ") can be interpreted as personal attacks. There was also no warning of getting blocked. --Aminz 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. that said, it is clear Zereshk's comment was incivil. --Aminz 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AND are any of the above "Personal attacks"?? --Aminz 02:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, especially that first one. --InShaneee 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks --Aminz 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Please block User:Ahwaz:Ahwaz and user 68.49.90.60 They have continuously been vandalizing several articles and have both broken the 3rrv rule (3 revert rule).Khosrow II 01:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then please do lock those three articles for now. i have put the tag in already but im not sure if regular users can do that or not. the articles as they are now are the versions that have been agreed upon, so please do lock those three.: Tabriz rug, Persian Gulf, and Iranian Azerbaijan. thanks.Khosrow II 03:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the help.Khosrow II 03:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Regarding your last post to me, practice what you preach. How is it OK for you to tell everyone I'm "ranting"[27], and have "groupies"?

STOP HARRASSING ME.

LEAVE ME ALONE!!--Zereshk 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The solution is easy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users." And the fact of the matter is that YOU attacked me, and not the content, by labeling my statements as "rant" and all users supporting me as "groupies". THAT IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY. get that straight.

Youve picked a bad fight, shane. I have a far cleaner record than you. Let it go. And leave me alone.--Zereshk 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shane, how long do you wish to keep my user page locked? Its been several days now. Is that also policy?--Zereshk 23:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your problem

I think you have some problem with me. I also know that this was not a personal attack and was simply a repeat of what others said of that page - none of whom have received a warning from you. This proves my belief that you are keen to block me because you do not like my edits, rather than any violation of rules. It seems to me that you are stalking me and others in order to find the smallest deviation from a strict interpretation of policy in your effort to block people.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Who did I attack? Name the user and I will apologise to them.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am very very sorry for you and others who felt insulted by my simple comment that I was voting to counteract vote stacking, although I make no accusation against you - I was just explaining why I was voting. In future, I will consult with you before I vote, just in case.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When you write on User:Aminz's talk page that he has "been doing little aside from crusading across the wiki in a fairly disruptive manner" because he sent messages to several people on an issue of Wikipedia policy [28], do you think you were being civil? I suggest to you that perhaps your manner is more disruptive than the behaviour you claim you are trying to combat. That is not a personal insult, that is my opinion. As is often said, this is not a place for elitism and I believe in the maxim "question everything" and that includes your judgement as an admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who else have you threatened with blocks? User:Hipocrite made the same point and received no warning from you. The truth is that you have a personal problem with me, not whatever I say. This has surfaced more than once, for example when you refused to warn users who were uncivil towards me. In my opinion, you take sides and that makes you a bad admin.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You say you "discussed the matter with each and every person who made such incivil accusations". Show me where you warned User:Hipocrite for making exactly the same point as I did.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"I've got better things to do than babysit you"[29] - very nice, Shane. Is this an example of your "civility"? I asked a simple question. Why warn one user and not the other for the same remark? Take a look on my talk page and you will find a far more direct approach by another user to the vote-staking campaigns run by some users.[30] I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is time for some honesty here. Let me be honest. You are not enforcing policy uniformly, you are bullying. You accuse me of civility, but you have thrown far more incivility at me. Shame on you for your behaviour. You should not be an admin, in my opinion. User:Aminz is correct. Admins should be required to put themselves up for re-election to weed out the dross.

And I can make any demand I want - this is not a hierarchical organisation, remember? --الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with incivility, then I suggest you go block yourself for little quips like "I've got better things to do than babysit you" [31] when I ask you to explain your pattern of warnings. You still haven't answered my original question. Why block me and not others who make exactly the same point as me? You are accountable to the Wikipedia community for your decisions. As someone directly affected by your judgements, I demand an answer.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)