User talk:Socafan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:32, 15 June 2006 editRenamedUser2 (talk \| contribs)6,002 edits →Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval: perhaps contradictory policies. try taking it up on policy talk page, not with Essjay← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:27, 15 June 2006 edit undoPgk (talk \| contribs)20,534 edits →Unblock request Next edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:

	==Unblock request==		==Unblock request==
	{{unblock\|I have not even heard of the user someone claims I am a sockpuppet of, I cannot find entries at checkuser for them, there is not a single piece of evidence provided for the claim, I cannot find a single article I edited among those they seem to have focussed on so I wonder how even the suspicion could arise, and the only thing at the checkuser page about me is an "inconclusive" case with someone different from the two. "Inconclusive" based on the fact that two guys from two European countries are likely identical. Sorry for cynism.}}		<nowiki>{{unblock\|I have not even heard of the user someone claims I am a sockpuppet of, I cannot find entries at checkuser for them, there is not a single piece of evidence provided for the claim, I cannot find a single article I edited among those they seem to have focussed on so I wonder how even the suspicion could arise, and the only thing at the checkuser page about me is an "inconclusive" case with someone different from the two. "Inconclusive" based on the fact that two guys from two European countries are likely identical. Sorry for cynism.}}</nowiki>
	: You need to contact the blocking admin. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)		: You need to contact the blocking admin. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
	::How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: ]. ] 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)		::How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: ]. ] 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
			::: Through the email this user link on his user page, or via the mailing list. Since the user has check user ability and most other admins don't I cannot review the same information as he has, so I cannot fully review. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

	==]==		==]==

Revision as of 17:27, 15 June 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Socafan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

You may also be interested in the Misplaced Pages:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Guettarda 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was when I was a noob in regards to userfying stuff. The original page was a random page created by the user and it appeared to be user page stuff. Also, it was late at night and I am sorry if it disturbed you. If there is anything I can do leave a message, Yanksox 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

re: block

As I said on AN/I, if he will just promise to stop evading the block, I will reduce it back to a week. So far he hasn't contacted me. I think my offer is reasonable, and as someone else pointed out on his talk, he can open an RFC against me or anyone else after the week is up. He was causing a lot of disruption before and especially after his block, so I think he needs some time to cool off. Of course if he said he'd stop the disruption and I thought he was being serious, I'd unblock him entirely. But again, he hasn't contacted me. --W.marsh 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

He was unappologetically evading a block and causing disruption. There's simply no excuse for that. If he's not mature enough to realize that, I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. I think I'm being reasonable. --W.marsh 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and in fact, it's all I'm asking for... if he says he will stop evading the block, I will take it back down to the 1 week. Anything beyond that he'll need to talk to the admin who gave the 1 week block, not me. --W.marsh 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{unblock|I have not even heard of the user someone claims I am a sockpuppet of, I cannot find entries at checkuser for them, there is not a single piece of evidence provided for the claim, I cannot find a single article I edited among those they seem to have focussed on so I wonder how even the suspicion could arise, and the only thing at the checkuser page about me is an "inconclusive" case with someone different from the two. "Inconclusive" based on the fact that two guys from two European countries are likely identical. Sorry for cynism.}}

You need to contact the blocking admin. --pgk 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to contact him if he blocks me? Furthermore, I do not trust him and think other admins should handle this case. He blocked without any basis, apparently as he tries to censor me because he disagrees with me in the case of another user whose original block was unfair: Dabljuh. Socafan 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Through the email this user link on his user page, or via the mailing list. Since the user has check user ability and most other admins don't I cannot review the same information as he has, so I cannot fully review. --pgk 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

As the admin who blocked me removed the source from the article for the number of signatories , here is a link to a source that can be accessed without registration: Currently the Rome Statute of the ICC has 139 Signatories and 100 Ratifications. It also shows that the United States were indeed not removed from the list of signatories as written in the article with a tag for "citation needed". Socafan 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please apologize for revealing users' location without their approval

and promise not to ever do this again. Socafan 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. The Foundation's privacy policy allows information on the general location of an individual to be released; saying "He's coming from ---" or "He's editing from ---" is perfectly within policy. I suggest that the next time you call someone out, you get your facts straight before you make a total fool of yourself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need to infringe on other users' privacy. Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Please show me where in the policy it is indicated you are allowed to reveal where users edit from. Privacy policy says: Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym. When using a pseudonym, your IP address will not be available to the public. Socafan 10:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's technically in the Checkuser policy, though I think you are correct that it is contradictory to the privacy policy, which is probably more important. I reccomend taking it up on the Checkuser talk page, not with Essjay. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)