User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Dec06

Phillip Ramsey

Shane - I think Phillip Ramsey may have been deleted too quickly. I couldn't find any support for the existence of the person (I think I was the original PROD, before the speedy delete was added). But it looks like the name was just mis-spelled in the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/atl/reviews/06122004msp.shtml refers to a Philip Ramsey (one "L"). I'm not saying that this Ramsey person is notable (I can't find much other information on them, so I don't know) - only that there's the possibility. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe it should be revived for discussion? Other people might know more about him and be able to add insight. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article (I've got no idea who the bloke is) - I just flagged it for Proposed Deletion while on RC Patrol, and may have been in error in doing so. (It then got speedied). If the person who created it wants to re-create it...that's fine with me. (I've got no idea who the author was, though - hence the e-mail to you.) --TheOtherBob 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, it was me that wrote the article. This is my first article (I've only tidied up other things) so sorry if I hadn't enough information in it. I have checked some more facts about Phillip Ramsey - is the original story in here anywhere or do I need to write it from scratch again? Thanks, --Samwise7 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Shane, I've fixed it - Bob was right, the spelling was wrong.--Samwise7 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Khalilak

Hey, I'm trying to look into this user's current unblock request, and saw you blocked them as a sockpuppet. A cursory (keyword cursory) look over the history of the page they edited didn't make it too obvious; any comment or thoughts to elucidate the situation? :) Luna Santin 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. After some more thought on this one, I'm leaning towards an AGF unblock, if you don't object -- they seem to be putting more thought/effort into this than the average throwaway account. Most sockpuppeteers would just register a new account to keep at it, no? Luna Santin 04:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers instead of dots

Numbers don't only count, but can also indicate ranking. If you must insist that an alphabetical list needs numbers, then please remove my name from the list. Moriori 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"hit list"

Hi, I am User:Dc76. You have some objections about my user page, similar to those rased to me by User:Khoikhoi a few minutes ago. How about the current version? If there is something inapropriate, please tell me, I will change it. I have ears and I have common sense. There is no need to do the edit. At least not with me, I listen to people.

P.S. I left this in my user page:

Vandals: (I will wait one week before having to add someone knows who here, he knows very well what he has to do.) !---If you worry that I will add a name here, please know I will not! I just want him/her and me to know that an appology was sronbgly due and was or not found. The reality is, the time for appology is never expired.---

Reason? Because I said already that I will wait one week, it would be ilogical to revert my own word. But I am absolutely free not to take any action when there is not appology. This is the same reason I refrained from naming him/her in the first place: if he/she does something wrong, I can be better, and not respond the same way.

Dc76 22:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You left this on my page:

No, you can't. If he wants to apologize, he will, and yes, that is the polite thing for him to do. However, if he doesn't, that is his prerogative, and we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Thank you, though, for your cooperation here. --InShaneee 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. I will do nothing about him, God have mercy on his soul. Yes, talking about this issue distracts my working on Wikipedia artciles, too, and I am consequently stuck with old ones, and cannot move to new domains and articles. Good luck, and take care:Dc76 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

Regarding the note you left on my userpage, please explain how any editor can have "a very, very unpleasant time here" simply because they choose not to have their name on a list. Moriori 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a public project. My name's on your talk page now, and yours is on mine. "Yahoos" are going to edit the things you write, and their names will appear right next to, and eventually above, your in the history. People are going to draw associations about you simply by being here; I'm just saying that if you're uncomfortable not having the correct number in front of your name on a page that less than 2 dozen people see, then I firmly believe that you're going to find things getting far worse as you go on. --InShaneee 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to recognise bullying when I see it. Your subsequent attempt to sidetrack says volumes about you. I mentioned only a particular list, nothjng more, and certainly none of the irrelevancies you have replied with. A simple "gee, I shouldn't have said that" would have been a principled response, but no, you tried to sidetrack. I expected much more of an admin. Incidentally, I left the same query on your talk page, so am copying your response, and mine, over there. Moriori 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I noted that you requested some information on how to merge the paranormal project with the rational skepticism project. There is a page at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, where you can propose what might be controversial mergers, but I am far from convinced that that would be the way to go here. Getting one side or the other to voluntarily give up on their project unilaterally would probably be difficult, if not impossible. If I might make a suggestion, it might work to change the name of the paranormal project to something like WikiProject: Claims of the Paranormal or WikiProject: Paranormal Investigation, making it clear that the project welcomes both pro- and con- within its scope, and then propose a merger. Or, alternately, propose on the rational skepticism project page that both projects in effect merge into a project with a similar name. Hope that helps a little. Badbilltucker 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Block threat

Please do not make idle threats to block me for something that is not against policy. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. I don't know where you got 48 hours for talking about an RfC on WP:CVG from, nor do I understand why you then doubled the block when ALTTP got a little testy (understandably so considering you blocked him outside of blocking policy) and then cited incivility. Though ALTTP can be abrasive at times, he certainly didn't cross the boundary that merits a 48 hour block -- nor does it make sense to use a block as some sort of punishment, as you seem to be doing, as opposed to a preventative measure. If you have any questions please direct them at my talk page or the e-mail user form. Thanks. Andre (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, please let us shift the discuss here to the Wiki. IRC should not be a place for discussions of this nature. Andre (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't we start by addressing the rationale I had for unblocking to begin with? Basically, that discussing an RfC on an inappropriate page and then reverting when someone tries to remove it is grounds for a block. It's not, and nowhere in the blocking policy does it enable you to block (48 hours, no less!) for that. And I think you doubled the block because he rubbed you the wrong way -- which of course is not allowed under blocking policy either. Andre (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not trolling. Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. To characterize the recruiting of opinions for an RfC on a talk page associated loosely with that user as trolling is assuming bad faith, pure and simple. At any rate, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of blocking. "Offenses" do not merit blocks like punishments - they are purely preventative measures designed to stop the encyclopedia from being disrupted. In this case, 96 hours is not only excessive, but punitive. Andre (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to sleep now, but please direct all correspondence to my talk page and I'll see it tomorrow. Andre (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You Don't Know Jack

You Don't Know Jack - I have added a neutrality discussion section to this entry, based on your tag - I would appreciate it if you were to give your reasons, or further details, so that corrections may be made to the article. Elcondor 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

Hey there, InShaneee. I posted an RfC on behalf of a user who asked around on IRC if someone would post it for him, as he's blocked at the moment. I've no real knowledge of the situation; that is, I didn't create the RfC, I just posted it. Anyways, here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee. I hope it all works out! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Past

I personally suggest unblocking Link and letting him run his RFC. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, it would allow a formal venue for Link to get his complaints shown, and hopefully also help conclude the argument on List of Animal Crossing characters that started this mess. Secondly, it would prevent the appearance of paranoid clamp-down that this block undoubtably gives to Link at present.

Essentially, a block at this point is doing more harm than good, and the page protection especially appears to not be a well thought response. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I was contacted by ALinktothePast to unblock, and I had to inform him that I would not do so. Encouraging further campaigning of the kind he was engaged in, and further incivility, would really not have been okay. Demi ^T/_C 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could give me the reasons for the block, i'll take up the RfC if you won't let Link to the Past do it, thanks

†he Bread 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignored? Of course not. However, seeing as at least one other admin and myself both have criticized this block, I believe it would be the more prudent course to at the least unprotect his talk page. The disruption which Link could cause on his talk page is minimal, the damage to the encyclopedia nonexistant, the potential damage caused inestimable. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 07:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your extension of his block was purely vindictive. I don't care how annoying he is, you don't double a block's length just because someone gets a little snippy. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You could almost see some abuse of admin privillages here, I too condem this block, I also belive this may be a reaction to the fact that it was AMIB who is going to be RfCed

†he Bread 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the block - particularly the doubling of it when he disagreed with you. I do believe you were making the block in good faith. However, the first impression that I got when I came across it was that you were using administrative powers to punish, rather than to protect. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it seemed vindictive. Stepping back from it, I do believe that the block was made in good faith, because I've seen your work to make Wikipedia better and I know you're committed to doing so. So I think you were making a good faith attempt to deal with a problem - but I also think this was the wrong way to approach it. --TheOtherBob 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this block with at least half a dozen admins both before and after the block. They all agreed at the very least that this was a judgement call, not a case of right or wrong. Most endorsed a block of some sort for his behavior before, during, and after the block, as well. --InShaneee 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a judgment call for a block at all, then a 96 hour block is most definitely not justified. Andre (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I've now reduced it to the original 48 hours as a compromise. --InShaneee 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'm glad of that at least, but even 48 hours for a borderline case is excessive. Also, protecting the talk page is 100% inappropriate. Andre (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's innapropriate was his comments there. Disrespect of that caliber is not tolerated here. --InShaneee 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Disrespect"? No single user inherently deserves respect any more than any other user. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indignation is not the same as a personal attack or incivility, and it is well within the realm of reasonable speech. Silencing his disagreement with you is not protecting anyone, it's just punishing him. Andre (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And please modulate the pomposity of your tone. We are admins, not kings. Andre (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of merely saying "ditto" to what Andre and tjstrf have said, I'd say that no one owes any particular respect to anyone just because they're an admin. "Administrator" is a responsibility, not a rank.--TheOtherBob 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've now also protected his talk page to prevent further comment by the blocked user. I haven't seen him commit anything that could be called "vandalism" there, nor have I seen him remove anything, which are the typical reasons for blocking the talk page. Is there a reason you did that? Again, Shane, as much as you think this is an appropriate block, to a third party it really does start to look like you have it "out" for the guy. You applied a fairly long block, then doubled it when he spoke up in opposition - which looked punitive and excessive to at least a couple of people who have spoken up here. You then accused other admins of "wheel warring" when they disagreed and unblocked him. Then when people started complaining about it on the talk page, you protected that. I know you mean well, but it is starting to look bad - it's starting to reflect more on you than on him. I'm just a third party to all this mess - but it's something to consider. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment below. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ---

Dear InShaneee, I dont know that,why you are so opposite to me and you use unsuitable/unpolite language in your statements as below?

If he doesn't think he did anything wrong, he'll just do it again once unblocked. We CANNOT let this guy back if he's blatantly not going to care about policy. --InShaneee 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are three arguments in your comment above;
1-If he doesn't think he did anything wrong; is not correct. I am accepting my wrong,At first moment,after first warning.I put my apologies in related talk pages(including Khoikhoi, with my congrats)The way that I choose was not correct according to wiki rules,as I learned, I had no detailed info about rules at that time and I am trying to learn.
2-he'll just do it again once unblocked;also is not correct since I stopped my efforts(to sending messages) after first warning.This is very prejudistic allege without any evidence.
3-he's blatantly not going to care about policy;also prejudistic and contain unpolite words.There are many evidence on my care about wiki rules.For my last case, I already explained what is what.Considering the unpolite word"blatantly"; there is a saying in Turkish; Kötü söz sahibine aittir- Bad word suits to the owner.
You most certainly do not have the right to demand apologies from anyone, for any reason. --InShaneee 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC);Anybody most certainly do not have the right to affront to anyone, for any reason.

You are admin in enwiki, and its normal to wait more neutrality from an admin.

Sincerely

Mustafa Akalp^TC 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also thought from day 1 that it was a mistake to let you back, and your activity is proving me right with each second that goes by. Instead of admitting to a terribly poor contributing behaviour that you'd be willing to improve, you've got the nerve to ask from people to apologise to you. You actually expect editors to invite you back to wikipedia and admit their mistake of having you banned you in the first place. And as if that wasn't enough, you're actually pursuing people's apologies by leaving them messages in their Talk pages, I'm mean this is just laughable. I just feel sorry about the admins and editors that will have too deal with you again in the near future. Miskin 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Caligvla

Please see this: [1]. You have warned him for personal attacks in the past.--Eupator 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see below, Eupator calls me a racist for no legitimate reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Armenia/Armenia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board --Caligvla 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring while accusing others of wheel warring is still wheel warring.

Title and should say it all, really. If other admins are presenting rational oppositions to your administrative actions, you should not be redoing them without addressing their opposition. Furthermore, to accuse these individuals of wheel-warring when you yourself are also doing so by reverting their changes is not only bad form, but downright absurd. You may wish to notice this, from WP:WHEEL

• As a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her.

The unblocking administrators have undone you, but they have each given a valid reason for doing so. Additionally, you will notice that the wording here states that this is a general rule. There will be exceptions.

So, their behaviour may have been slight suboptimal. However, looking one line further down the wheel warring page:

• If your action is reverted, you may not re-revert it: you must either discuss it or allow some other admin to take the action.

You have broken this definitely worded rule no less than 4 times and are wheel-warring against 2 other admins, all the while decrying the sin of wheel warring. This is both hypocritical and flies directly in the face of policy. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do something about it. I welcome review from a broad audience, not ranting. --InShaneee 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sixteen hours after another admin unblocked, the original block, which otherwise would have been halfway to expiring by now, is reinstated? Irrespective of the merits of the original block (the user's behavior was certainly not exemplary), this situation is now totally unfair to the user in question, who must be hopelessly confused. I suggest taking this to ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, my mistake; I should have recalculated the original block. I'll attempt that now and adjust the block down. --InShaneee 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the posting of a policy explanation being characterized as ranting. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And I dislike policy being dictated back to me like a newbie. --InShaneee 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't it's a computer popup that says " Save,Open or Cancel".Gamer322

Response

I just thought you would like to know that I responded to your response on your RfC (on the talk page). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you removed the Frank Grimes thing as an example of disruption. My creating that user page article disrupts nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've commented (at much greater length than I intended) on the RfC. I hope my comments are helpful. I also think that this is a dispute to be moved on from and that for the two of you to interact in this manner indefinitely is not going to do anyone any good. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dispute - InShaneee abused his authority, and if I have anything to say about it, he's going to get some form of punishment. Hell, the least he should get is a significant block - he violated some major, important policies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Users - administrators or not - don't get blocked for making mistakes in judgment, and an RfC is not a vehicle for seeking any remedy other than comments from the community. As you will see from my extensive comment on the RfC, I believe this situation was badly mishandled, and I think the RfC comments reflect that others agree with that, but you are not going to impress anybody by running around screaming for vengeance, either. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling for "vengeance". Pretty much everything InShaneee did with the exception of one compromise after tons of admins got on his case were things that no admin should do. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is improvement of the situation going forward, which your RfC may help achieve, not obtaining "some form of punishment." The irony of your username notwithstanding, in this instance, we look to the future, not to the past. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what am I supposed to think? He still believes what he did was okay, which isn't going to help with the future. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: What about the Frank Grimes' article on my user page violates any existing guideline or policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A reminder: I am still waiting for you to respond. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User Shervink

Hello InShanee. Im having a problem with user shervink and i was hoping you could help. He has removing sourced content from the Mohammed Mossadegh page (please see the page history). I have given him four warnings at his talk page ([2]) but he keeps removing sourced content. He removed the texts "Mohammed Mossadegh was.. democratically elected" and "British and U.S. funded CIA coup" [3][4][5]. He then backed away from removing the text "democratically elected" but instead changed "CIA coup" to plot and completely removed that the "coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr." and that it was "known as Operation Ajax". All of this has been referenced and i explicitly moved the references to right after the texts being deleted to make this clear (see this edit [6]). However this was removed again by shervink [7]. This user has made this kind of edits before and they were discussed at the talk page here and here but he left the discussion by writing "'m tired of discussing obvious matters".

I hope this can be resolved quickly.. thanks --- Melca 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:

That's not an accusation though. He did use actual nazi literature(it's not an analogy), and the characterization of the literature as nazi literature was made by your colleague not me. I'll dig up the diffs if you want. --Eupator 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Colleague=another admin.

Read this: [8]. That's about his source. This is where your colleague agrees that it was indeed nazi literature after I showed him the above link.[9]. I think you owe me an apology, for calling this "trolling" especially when you once blocked me for calling someones edit "trolling". Ironic?--Eupator 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you implying that eugenics programs and racial classifications of the third reich were accurate? Of course i'm trying to smear it and every other racist junk that came ouf the third reich, so is everyone else!--Eupator 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine even though it's not like I called him a nazi, it was a valid and cited description of his source, but trolling? I mean come on, that's out of line.--Eupator 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's subjective. Even so, I haven't been "going around" or "running around" informing people of that fact. It was in that user's talk page relative to the conversation at hand (which was not initiated by me), in order to demonstrate the motivation behind the dispute.--Eupator 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Normally not, like one shouldn't go and say "Hey what is your motivation for making an article about X" etc, but if there is a clear pattern that points to something it should be exposed. For example isn't WP:POINT entirely based on a users motive? How do you know that someone violated WP:POINT? By showing his motivation for doing so no?--Eupator 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And I don't focus on an articles content? 90% of all my edits are on articles. There are other areas on Wikipedia besides articles. User space, mainspace, project space etc. Besides that last line could be interpreted as a veiled threat, so I wont ask any more questions.--Eupator 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record I have never used any NAZI propaganda. The images in question were published in 1911, long before anyone heard of the NAZIs, see here http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/pictures/asiaminor/ I posted a pictured in the Armeians article of an Armenian, the gang didn't like the picture, so I found photos from an academic scholarly work on the Antrhopology of people from Asia Minor. I have posted this information many times and Eupator knows it, why his edits claim this is a Nazi photo I have no idea.

He has also wikistalked me here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe#Outside_review and started spreading more personal attacks. When will this end?--Caligvla 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khoikhoi#User_Inshaneee --Caligvla 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

Dear InShanee, A new User:Large_Barge is declared himself as admin and member of arbitration commitee. He vandalise some users with temporary block tag. Please see;Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse. Regards Mustafa Akalp^TC 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Paranormal

Thanks for the invitation. However, i think most people involved with Ufology would find me a bit of a party-pooper. My interest in Area 51 is for the military aircraft testing aspect only, not the ufo/illuminati/black helicopter-type of claims. Flabreque 04:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion

Hi, I'm here on behalf of the blocked user Laurentdion. I see that you have blocked him indefinately for "personal attacks, legal threats". I think that we should divide this into two seperate issues. Firstly, the issue of legal threats. I think that it is clearly incorrect to say that the description of something as "slander" or "libel" is a legal threat. If he had said "That is libel, so take it down now before I sue you!", then that would have been a legal threat. However, since he did not say that, looking at WP:NLT will confirm that a complaint that something is libel is not a legal threat.

Secondly, the personal attacks issue. I agree with you that a block was appropriate, but would ask that you reconsider its length. Common sense says that an indef duration is somewhat excessive for a first block. I would suggest that you consider reducing the ban to, say, a week, to enforce a cooling-off and reflection period for the user, so he can return to the Wiki refreshed and ready to address the dispute in a calmer manner, but without driving him away for ever. Thanks, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee!

I have also been contacted by Laurentdion. As a member of the WP:AMA, I'd like to help a user who got off on the wrong foot, if possible. No one's saying you're a bad admin or anything, but I can only echo what David Mestel says above: an indef block for the first block might have been excessive. For the record, I did see this user's last contributions, and they were certainly totally out of line. However, in his e-mails, he has stated he will not use such clorful language again, and he says he just wants the "right to disapear" on his original account.

He has asked to be unblocked, but I will never undo the block of an admin working in good faith, such as yourself. Are you willing to suspend the indef block while we straighten out the mess? Would you prefer to discuss this privately, or would you rather we discuss this on your talk page?

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, InShanee. I appreciate your time. You've stated the user has no edits in articlespace. Actually, he had several edits on one article, which was deleted (for blatant advertising), which is what caused him to react badly in the first place. Edits like [10] ("Richard, I appreciate your suggestion.") show he really can be civil. I don't deny he got out of hand, but he has stated he wants the right to vanish. You've stated this was impossible ([we can't] "delete every mention of him and his former article from the history of every page in which they have appeared"), but there are currently only 5 pages which link to user:Laurentdion, including this one. Do we want this user to leave permanantly? If we want this user to "leave with his pride and dignity intact", shouldn't we facilitate that process, if possible? Like I say, you're clearly a good admin, and I would certainly have blocked this user given the circumstances, but I'm not sure an indefinite block for a first block was appropriate in this case. Since this user can be civil, however, and did try to contribute to Wikipedia before being blocked indefinitely, I would argue that perhaps David's proposal, reducing to a week-long block, might allow the user to cool off so the situation can be handled in a calmer manner, without driving away a potentially good user. Again, I'll never undo the block of another admin acting in good faith, so I hope maybe you will maybe possibly think about reconsidering the block length. Whatever you decide (or have already decided), thanks for at least listening. :) Take care! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, he's agreed to your proposal, and suggest that you either reduce the block to a finite period straightaway, or, if you want confirmation out of his own mouth, you can unprotect his talk page, and I will ask him to leave a message their agreeing to the conditions. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I really hope this works out. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"perso-nazi"

Personal attack by User karcha, see here: [11] He has also made similar comments elsewhere. He also criticizes the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam as Iranian and Islamic "propaganda". He wont even bother to read the Wiki articles on those to see what they actually are. He also says things like we shouldnt edit "Turkic related" articles at all. I am reporting his behavior to you.Khosrow II 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perso-nazi is not a personal attack. It's only your real attitude.--Karcha 22:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking comments that aren't vandalism.

It's pointless, incivil, and leads to conflict escalation rather than conflict resolution. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just baiting me. He wants a war, and I've got better things to do. --InShaneee 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote you, "Focus on content, not the contributor." His questions were valid, and I believe he wants answers more than he does a "war". --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was discussed repeatedly in the past, and I don't think his sudden appearance on the only CVG page on my watchlist was a coincidence. Whatever he wants, for the moment, I just want to get on with my own business. --InShaneee 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please contribute to improve Wikipedia

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Wikipedia...--Karcha 01:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

David Hartwig

Why did you delete the article about David Hartwig? He is Skidboot's owner. They have been on Oprah, Leno, Letterman, Pet Star, several news stories, etc. Jay Leno said, "Skidboot is the smartest dog I've ever seen." A video about Skidboot currently ranks number nine on Google Video. I think David and his dog qualify as notable enough for Wikipedia articles. I was about to contest the speedy deletion tagging, but by the time I clicked on "edit", the page was gone.

- JNeal 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

The second one is for backup. ;-) Khoikhoi 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting myself

[12] Fad (ix) 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

71.162.66.250

A user you recently blocked has put in an unblock request, see here, thought you'd like to know. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of the article on Forocoches

I have just found that a few months ago you deleted the article on Spanish popular internet forum Forocoches, on the argument that it supposedly is "non-notable" (you added "on the English Wikipedia", which is not a valid argument because something is either notable for inclusion in Wikipedia or it is not, and notability cannot be dependent on the user/interface language/culture, because otherwise notable topics of non-anglophone culture would be left out of the English Wikipedia because they may seem "non-notable" to anglophones). Well, before making unsupported judgements about the "non-notability" of an internet forum, I think that at the very least one should have cared to first check some objective measure of how notable that forum actually is, rather than going by one's subjective impression or prejudice. One such measure you can find at the Big Boards database, which offers statistics for 1,797 internet forums worldwide. Among those, Forocoches currently ranks #38, being the largest Spanish and Spanish-language forum in the ranking (which alone would suffice to make it notable). As a reference, the hugely popular Slashdot ranks #36 in the list. Therefore, I hereby request the undeletion of Forocoches on the grounds of inappropriate reason for deletion. Uaxuctum 07:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Forocoches on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forocoches. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Uaxuctum 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal

so, how do ya join da WikiProject Paranormal?Idon'texist 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bubblebuster appealing block

Bubblebuster (talk ·  contribs) is appealing his block. When you block someone for sockpuppetry next time, please at least tag their user page or state who the puppeteer is in the block reason to save the time those who work CAT:RFU. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Some created a RFAr against you and didn't bother informing you of it. So I guess I am officially notifying you of it. semper fi — Moe 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the user and the case was reverted. semper fi — Moe 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments by User:NisarKand

Please take some time to have a look at this. Your opinion may help to solve the problem.

Thank you.

Tājik 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Use of "dumbly" in discussions

InShanee, you are right about the politeness, but I used the term "dumb" just to mean "without words". Maybe, used as an adverb, it has a stronger meaning than I think. --Cantalamessa 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Roswell

I find it difficult to work with someone who won't ever respond to the point of a statement I make. Non-sequiturs, strawman and ad hominem make my brain hurt. Canada Jack is the workhorse of that article anyway.

I'll stick around... but don't expect me to make much of a response to anything Moriori says. ---J.S (t|c) 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Karcha

Personal attack [13] I have warned him twice before as evidence here [14]. Khorshid 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heyyy, where is the personal attack? What are you talking about? Why did you warn me?--Karcha 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll complain you. Your warnings are unilateral.--Karcha 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling a user by a highly offensive name???--Karcha 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the Support I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, InShanee, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You've had your little bit of fun

InShanee, OK, how, how about we get on with editing Wikipedia. Every wikipedia editor has the right to edit any unprotected page, as I did when adding (someone else's) article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. You are incorrect where you stated the project "should only be edited by members" when you reverted my addition. There is no such Wikipedia policy. I advised you of this when restoring my addition by saying in the edit summary "Inshanee, please read Wikipedia policy, especially where it says "Wikipedia is a Wiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected page"." You have nonetheless reverted again which is a disruption of Wikipedia. Please don't do it again. Moriori 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, you have chosen to revert again, meaning you have deliberately breached 3RR (1, 2 and 3), so I am blocking you from editing for 24 hours. I am amazed that you as an admin would consciously do this. As well as the 3RR violation you are making wild inaccurate claims that are not in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. It is not true, as you asserted, that a Wiki-project page "should only be edited by members". It is not true that I "don't have a 'right' to do anything here" as you say here. Policy gives me the right to edit any page in Wikipedia, and I for one reject your posturing where you say (we) "do not like non-members editing our spaces. Do not do it again". If you want to put your "non-member" assertion to the test, be my guest. In light of your current Rfc here, I would have thought you would have taken a lower profile. Moriori 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to revert 4 times to violate the 3rr. And it's fairly bad form to block someone your in a conflict with. In addition, you had no consensus to add that article to the list. (in fact, the very act of another editor removing it shows there is at least the doubt that there is consensus for it to be in place.) ---J.S (t|c) 08:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, your point on 3RR is taken, and I will (actually already have) obviously unblock him (as well as having been apporached by User:Gadfium). That aside, I fail to see how it can be "fairly bad form" to block someone who hides behind non existent Wikipedia policy. I don't care who or what InShanee thinks he is, I am working here for a better Wikipedia. You are advocating the same non existent policy as he is. I and other Wikipedia editors do not need consensus from you or InShaneee to add a newly created paranormal article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal‎. And please, get real, the "another editor" you mention who removed it is InShanee. I am replacing Paranormal vision on Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal‎. If anyone removes it they need to understand they will have to argue their case elsewhere. Moriori 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All _due_ respect intended, this... is a sad situation and shouldn't have ever happened. Moriori, admin tool usage in a personal conflict aside for a second, the proper course of action for any editor should have been to take the issue to the talk page, maybe revert one time if that.

Inshaneee, I don't know where you got the idea that only project members may contribute to a project's page, but please read WP:OWN, and indeed the section of WikiProject Paranormal where it says that not all articles need to be from project members. (And yes, I'm aware you coordinate WP:PARA. It's still a violation.) You also could have taken this to a talk page (Moriori's, the WikiProject's, whatever) rather than reverting another contributor in good standing who has given no sign that they are making anything but a good faith contribution.

Why on earth do a pair of admins need reminded of basic policy anyway? Not edit warring is something we teach people on their second day here, not 2 and 3 year Wikipedia veterans. --tjstrf talk 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Moriori, consensus is policy. ---J.S (t|c) 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that the biggest consensus of all overrides parochial wishlists. As you seem to have missed it, have a look just above this, at Tjstrf's paragraph which begins "Inshanee, I don't know where you got the idea that only project members may contribute to a project's page.......". I'll take my bollocking from Tjstrf. I hope you take his advice. Moriori 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact there was no consensus to include that article in the list. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c) 06:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I must apologize for pursuing the RfAr, as while I feel there is a strong case for it, I was also pursuing it because I was angered over an excessive and unecessary block (in my opinion, of course, I do not require you to agree or apologize for it). I do this because of both my interest in seeing a more productive Wikipedia instead of users fighting and because I was not an innocent in this conflict.

And while I will not demand an apology for the block, I would appreciate it if you gave one for having accused me of flame baiting on your user talk page. Thank you and I hope you respond this time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should - but while I have problems I need to work out, I think you have some anger issues as well. I've seen you flame others, (pardon the following term for I couldn't think of a better descriptor) were hypocritical with the "do not call other users trolls" comment, and of course, you appear to not understand what an admin is about - it's a responsibility, not a status, and one shouldn't demand respect simply because of the responsibility.

Additionally, wheel warring, punitive blocks, and user talk page protection - you have to be less on the offensive with user talk page protection, you are not supposed to give punitive blocks, and you are not supposed to wheel war. Do not think of this as an attack, but rather constructive criticism.

And finally, when I requested an apology in that last statement, I was requesting it for you assuming that I was trying to bait you on the talk page; I'm no longer interested in an apology over the block. Also, I think it would reflect well on you as well if you apologized to the user you called a douche. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please stop. [15] This is not vandalism, so you shouldn't use Vandal Proof for it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Whichever program you're using. You were told not to. Additionally, all I am looking for is an apology and knowledge that you will improve upon yourself; I am not stalking you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, this edit does actualy look like it could be vandalism. ---J.S (t|c) 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It possibly could, but there is easily room for doubt as to whether or not it is vandalism. It could just be someone who doesn't understand the tone of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please listen - you are not supposed to use the software you are using for edits such as this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee, I guess A Link to the Past is suggesting you should have a look at the following advice: rollback function. Thanks, Addhoc 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest he stop going through my edits on a daily basis, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on those points. --InShaneee 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not stalking, it's "patrolling". It's no secret that you've done some things in the past that are frowned upon by guidelines or policies. Someone SHOULD be monitoring your actions; The fact that I am monitoring you doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with monitoring the edit history of a user to make sure they're not doing anything wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It can actually boarder on harassment and stalking. ---J.S (t|c) 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No that isn't correct. I suggest you have a look at WP:STALK... Addhoc 12:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, InShaneee, stop using rollback for non-vandal edits. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Given his previous response, I doubt he is going to be more reasonable. I suggest you continue to monitor his edits and if there isn't an improvement, take the case to ArbCom. Addhoc 11:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, if you continue to 'monitor' me, action will be taken against you for stalking. --InShaneee 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I like how you imply that what I am doing is a bad thing. Are you saying that you are indeed using rollback properly? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with J.S. that this might be boardering on harrasment and stalking. User:InShaneee has clearly made it clear she is feeling harassed by User:A Link to the Past, it is not necessary for User:A Link to the Past to monitor the user, if the user needs to be monitored I would suggest a neutral party should do it. Dionyseus 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And you are hardly a neutral party in this case. It is not harassment to monitor the contributions of a user. If they would stop doing something they were not supposed to be doing, the monitoring would end. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but what policy says an admin can't rollback damaging edits? ---J.S (t|c) 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback is not for good faith edits, and yet he is using it for them. And who said that he was doing it for only damaging edits? More often than not, I've seen him use it on test edits or edits made in good faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... but is there a policy somewhere that I can read? I looked around and i've been unable to find one. ---J.S (t|c) 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi J.S, according to WP:ADMIN, "One-click rollback is only intended for vandalism, spam, etc." Also, monitoring isn't harassment, see WP:STALK... Addhoc 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADMIN isn't a policy. It looks like a list of "best practice" recommendations. You keep telling me to go look at WP:STALK, but if you review WP:STALK you'll see the "Cool Cat" example. It says: "It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith (...) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy." I don't think a RFC (where he acknowledged he made a mistake) is enough to classify a long-time user as a "bad faith" editor. ---J.S (t|c) 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee called someone a douche bag. That is reason enough to monitor him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know when it is or when it is not appropiate to monitor someone, but to me it is clear that if monitoring is required, you should not be doing the monitoring, someone who is neutral should do it. Your nitpicks seem to be aimed at causing discomfort and negative emotions to User:InShaneee, that is the definition of harrasment. Dionyseus 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think thats a very weak justification to throw out AGF. ---J.S (t|c) 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi J.S, I agree that WP:ADMIN isn't a policy and would concur that it represents best practice. From your quote of WP:STALK, I would suggest that monitoring isn't a policy violation, while "constantly nit-picking is always a violation". Addhoc 21:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement on both of those points... I think Link is in engaging in behavior that could be called nit-picking. He's currently in a grey area and could get in trouble over it. All I'm trying to do is to suggest backing off and move on to editing the pedia side of the wiki. ---J.S (t|c) 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

He has been told not to use rollback in the past by another administrator who has been here for much longer. He has ignored him, and that's good enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If needed I am willing to volunteer as a mediator here. A Link to the Past if you see a problem, contact me and we can discuss it. Then I can contact InShaneee as needed. I do not think it is in the best interest of the community for you all to continue in the manner you are now. If you prefer, I will help you find some one else to mediate. Take care, --FloNight 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Link, while I agree that rollback should not be used in the way InShaneee has been using it, and I have pushed for that to be policy, it is not against policy and it does not justify 'monitoring', and certainly not by someone involved in an RFC with InShanee. I recommend that both of you accept FloNights very generous offer. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A Link to the Past, I suggest that you back off a little; there would be no need for exacerbating the situation. We can have other users/admins handling the situation. This edit is a good faith edit, but can be said to be damaging the integrity of the article. I will assume that you are not familiar with RC patrolling, but the way that Wikipedia is vandalised, a few vandal edits every second – most of the admins are using admin rollback to revert edits that are not up to the mark. Not reverting edits, and manually doing the same would mean loss of time for the admin and mean more vandalism gets to Wikipedia. I respect Mindspillage's opinion on this, but as Wikipedia grows – this definately is not a feasible option. What I recommend here is that the reverting admin should use a {{test0}} template and put it on the contributor's talk page so that the new user discusses this on the talk page, before inserting that information. However, this edit should not have been reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Zaparojdik

Please look at the edit summary here: [16]. This user has been warned and blocked multiple times for racism and personal attacks, yet he keeps doing it. Thanks.Khosrow II 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is he allowed to blank out admin warnings/blocks on his talk page: [17] [18] [19] [20]? Also, he has blanked out an article here: [21]. Just thought you should know about what hes doing on his talk page, I'm not sure whether rules prevent it or not, but just to give you a heads up.Khosrow II 23:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have complaint to fill out against Zaparojdik on Scythians. He reverted the article before I had inserted 14 valid sources! --alidoostzadeh 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Khorshid

Hey, sorry I dont think there is any personal attack, I think Khorshid see dream about threating. I require admins should be do something to him, is it allowed to incriminate someone here in wikipedia without no evidence? Zaparojdik 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Silver the Hedgehog Consensus

I would like your assistance in reaching a consensus on a matter in Silver the Hedgehog's talk page. There seems to be some debate on how Silver became Super Silver (via Super Sonic vs. via Chaos Emeralds). I invite you to the debate here. :)GrandMasterGalvatron 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)