Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee 2 was deleted having not been certified for 48 hours, but for the purposes of this case it would be quite useful for me to see what I wrote in it. Would it possible for it to be temporarily undeleted? 81.179.115.188 10:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Andre (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Other evidence 2 Other others with other views 3 Comment by Fadix 4 Clarification

[edit] Other evidence

I believe I have some other evidence in a works document, and can provide them sometime on Sunday. Also, just to bring it up, while InShaneee apologized for calling someone a douche bag, it took a very long time for him to do so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• This could be one of those weird cases. Many other issues of inappropriate blocking besides the WorldTraveller case are going to get tossed onto the table, here, and I'm unsure whether that should disqualify or be allowed. The blocks of WorldTraveller were more of a tipping point than anything, and I foresee (since prescience seems to be going around) a whole raft of side tracks and garden paths that will be planted. I should hope that no one will follow but rather patiently remind the posters that the subject is Inshaneee and blocking policy. Geogre 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other others with other views

The monk Alcuin was informed by his old monastery that a new brother had joined, and he had a wonderful singing voice. When they gathered at the board to eat dinner and pass the harp, this new brother could sing the tales of Ineldus beautifully. Alcuin wrote back, "Quid Ineldus cum Christos?" Quid "free pass" cum Inshaneee's blocking pattern? There is going to be a cloud of ejecta in the air. Geogre 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I follow here. No evidence has been brought forward of a "blocking pattern." Two blocks by InShaneee are present: one in October and one in January. The former was some time ago and already the subject of an RfC; only the latter is germane. InShaneee has admitted error and pledged to focus his efforts elsewhere. By a cloud of ejecta, are you indicating an intention to continue this matter following the conclusion of the arbitration case? Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume the first referred to my block, which he only apologized for extending, not for making the block (which was in defiance to WP policy and guidelines). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
• A blocking 'pattern' won't be considered without evidence; as Mackensen says, only two incidents have been mentioned in evidence. Two incidents do not make a pattern; they show judgment in individual instances only. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two incidents? Is the pattern of blocking threats, which I mention and exemplify in my evidence, of no interest, then? I thought it significant. As you can see in the dialogue I linked to, InShaneee threatened User:Askolnick with blocking for things like sarcasm on talkpages, and, well, it looked to me like InShaneee was frequently redefining content conflicts in terms of civility. Since he was on the other "side" than Askolnick I thought it an inappropriate use of admin powers. I had a talk with InShaneee about it on IRC, which convinced me that he was acting in good faith, and really cared about civility. But it seems to me that he considered himself neutral where he was not. I believe that (perhaps without seeing it himself) he used his powers against Askolnick far more than against A's opponents (who were by no means polite). Block threats are a use of admin powers that can be as frustrating as blocks themselves, and I know Askolnick (a valuable contributor IMO) found it so. Well, it's obvious from my link that he did. I could dig for more examples. It's work, though. If nobody's interested I won't. Bishonen | talk 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
    • The conversation with Askolnick seems to date from last August. Is there anything more recent than this? Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's of interest, certainly. As with Mackensen, I'd prefer something more recent, of course, but it certainly does suggest something of a pattern. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew is a good chap, though his conduct on Wikipedia has sometimes been difficult. Having said that, the comment [1] was in no way a personal attack or unsuitable for Wikipedia and InShaneee's intervention [2] seems poorly judged--even partisan. --Tony Sidaway 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Fadix

• • The 24 hour block can not be compared to the first two blocks InShaneee imposed against me. One for 24 hours the other for 72 hours. Not having any block material, InShaneee lied about the motives of the block on the IRC. His third block was valid though, but for that one I reported myself to him so that he could have the pleasure to block for a valid reason. If more evidence is needed that InShaneee has abused his administrator privilages, I will provide them. I even intended to start an arbitration case against him at the time. Well, if the arbitrators see for what insignifiance I have been blocked for 24 hours and then 72 hours, I wonder what justification InShaneee will come up with this time. Anyway, my prediction was that more he abuses his administrator privilages more people will get against him. This seem to have happened now. He is also the sole reason why I stopped voting in administrator "elections" I also decided to leave Wikipedia at that time. He does not fit for adminship, I am a veteran of over 2 years, and have known many, many many administrators. He is the one single I knew which prividing him the privilages was the biggest mistake of all. He lacks judgement and he should be desystoized. When an administrator abuse his powers, there should be no excuse. Fad (ix) 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I have asked Jimbo what he meant by the quote about anon IPs' civil rights, and in what capacity he was speaking. --Random832 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Might get a quicker response by asking on the mailing list. - Merzbow 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else will have to - my email's swamped as it is without doing wikipedia lists. --Random832 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)