Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ned Scott (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 30 October 2008 (→Note to reviewers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Sgeine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Shell, I think in the interest of openness the information you're saying is private should be posted on this page. I'd like to deal with the root cause here. According to you the root cause for the initial topic ban was for vandalism. The evasion ban is dubious at best. As soon as you told me there was any sort of ban I logged into my account to contest it and have been totally transparent as I could just as easily create another account. A second ban on top of an original unsound and undiscussed ban doesn't give the initial one any greater validity. Lets deal with the actual issues here. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Shell, I think in the interest of openness the information you're saying is private should be posted on this page. I'd like to deal with the root cause here. According to you the root cause for the initial topic ban was for vandalism. The evasion ban is dubious at best. As soon as you told me there was any sort of ban I logged into my account to contest it and have been totally transparent as I could just as easily create another account. A second ban on top of an original unsound and undiscussed ban doesn't give the initial one any greater validity. Lets deal with the actual issues here. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Shell, I think in the interest of openness the information you're saying is private should be posted on this page. I'd like to deal with the root cause here. According to you the root cause for the initial topic ban was for vandalism. The evasion ban is dubious at best. As soon as you told me there was any sort of ban I logged into my account to contest it and have been totally transparent as I could just as easily create another account. A second ban on top of an original unsound and undiscussed ban doesn't give the initial one any greater validity. Lets deal with the actual issues here. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sgeine (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this all I can find is this and this for what leads to the current block. I don't see any mention of an article ban, nor do I see any other users commenting on the situation. I'm confused as to why that has caused an indef block. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've kept looking, and I still have not found any discussion for a topical/article ban. I've looked on this talk page, on Shell's, on User talk:76.213.229.6, on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Helio Ocean, Talk:Helio Ocean, Talk:Helio (wireless carrier), and have not found any mention of a ban. None of these pages have entries in the deletion log. Shell says the discussion is on Wiki but I'm not finding it at all. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did find this, but that does not seem to be a topical ban,and blocking at that point doesn't seem necessary. I'm not supporting Sgeine's addition to the article (I don't have any position on it), but editing from an IP does not seem to be done with the intent of misleading anyone, and the "offense" itself is pretty minor. -- Ned Scott 09:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock