| Revision as of 06:20, 24 October 2008 editNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,901 edits →Note to reviewers← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:54, 24 October 2008 edit undoFisherQueen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,545 edits declineNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock|The original block was not in accordance with wikipedia policy on vandalism. The admin claimed vandalism where none was present and has presented no proof of vandalism. The admin did not assume good faith on the part of the editor and is clearly too personally involved to offer an objective policy based opinion. In fact, she reverted it repeatedly before i could even finish writing it or including sources as you can see in the history of the time. This appears to be more of an effort to silence debate than enforce actual policy. These extremely heavy handed tactics appear to be a consistent trait with this admin based on their talk page and history and should also be addressed in another forum. I would like this issue of blocking addressed by a neutral and objective third party other than Shell Kinney. This issue started when I requested to have a page removed in accordance with policy. Instead of addressing that issue the administrator chose instead to go in circles that were clearly more personal for her than based purely on policy as I repeatedly requested.}} | {{unblock reviewed|1=The original block was not in accordance with wikipedia policy on vandalism. The admin claimed vandalism where none was present and has presented no proof of vandalism. The admin did not assume good faith on the part of the editor and is clearly too personally involved to offer an objective policy based opinion. In fact, she reverted it repeatedly before i could even finish writing it or including sources as you can see in the history of the time. This appears to be more of an effort to silence debate than enforce actual policy. These extremely heavy handed tactics appear to be a consistent trait with this admin based on their talk page and history and should also be addressed in another forum. I would like this issue of blocking addressed by a neutral and objective third party other than Shell Kinney. This issue started when I requested to have a page removed in accordance with policy. Instead of addressing that issue the administrator chose instead to go in circles that were clearly more personal for her than based purely on policy as I repeatedly requested.|decline=Good news! You weren't blocked for vandalism at all. You were blocked for logging out in order to avoid a topic ban. — ]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 11:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)}} | ||
| ] (]) 03:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == here's the "Vandalism" claimed by shell kinney == | == here's the "Vandalism" claimed by shell kinney == | ||
Revision as of 11:54, 24 October 2008
Sgeine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The original block was not in accordance with wikipedia policy on vandalism. The admin claimed vandalism where none was present and has presented no proof of vandalism. The admin did not assume good faith on the part of the editor and is clearly too personally involved to offer an objective policy based opinion. In fact, she reverted it repeatedly before i could even finish writing it or including sources as you can see in the history of the time. This appears to be more of an effort to silence debate than enforce actual policy. These extremely heavy handed tactics appear to be a consistent trait with this admin based on their talk page and history and should also be addressed in another forum. I would like this issue of blocking addressed by a neutral and objective third party other than Shell Kinney. This issue started when I requested to have a page removed in accordance with policy. Instead of addressing that issue the administrator chose instead to go in circles that were clearly more personal for her than based purely on policy as I repeatedly requested.
Decline reason:
Good news! You weren't blocked for vandalism at all. You were blocked for logging out in order to avoid a topic ban. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
here's the "Vandalism" claimed by shell kinney
To view what she cited as vandalism it can be viewed here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Helio_(wireless_carrier)&oldid=228979775#Helio_Security_Incidents
this was all sourced information not page blanking or vulgarities or other clearly mischievous behaviours clearly outlined in wikipedia policy.
Note to reviewers
This block is not for vandalism, but for intentionally violating a topic ban by not logging in. This stems from some WP:OTRS issues, so I would be happy to discuss further privately with any admin who'd like to review. Also note that Sgeine is intentionally being misleading in his unblock; I mentioned that as one of the POV edits which were a problem, not as vandalism. Shell 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how an OTRS issue could cause someone to be indef blocked. If this was coupled with, say, an arbcom decision I could understand, but this seems beyond what OTRS is meant to do. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- The OTRS issues do not have anything to do with the block, just the back story and personal information about this editor and the issues involved that can't be disclosed publically but might be helpful to someone wishing to review the issue in depth. Shell 05:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aaaah, ok. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)