Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/InShaneee

message: I'll wait to see what InShanee has to say, but the RFC and User talk:InShaneee#Link to the Past are disturbing. Derex 10:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

message: InShaneee, I thought I should respond.
#Those are irrelevant to this discussion. But I will address  them anyway.
#The point I was trying to make with my Frank Grimes user article was that if you were to remove the Simpsons template and trivia list, it would be significantly smaller. There is nothing stating I cannot do that.
#Five of your examples are for the exact same thing. And they aren't even similar to this case, anyway - I was discussing it. While I was being incivil and was using personal attacks, I was not being disruptive, I was not trolling, and I was not harassing.
#I was disrupting nothing but a too bold move in List of Animal Crossing characters. I reverted AMIB and the other's guys' merge attempts because many people disagreed with it. AMIB was making the disruptive, unpopular move, and yet I was expected to let him do it and have to fight it on the talk page. I told him to discuss it, and considering that twice before it was decided to keep this article where it is, that was a pretty strong argument to not merge.
#The Jew comment was an unfortunate event, in which both parties involved not only apologized for what they had said, but accepted eachothers' apology, stating that they were both in the wrong and got ahead of themselves. It is not relevant to this discussion, and all you are doing is trying to legitimize a 48 hour block for a minor action that isn't even trolling by WP:TROLL - which states that trolling is an intentional attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. For what I was doing at all during your block and afterwards to be trolling, it would require that my intentions were not what I stated they were, but rather to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia for the rest of everyone. And no surprise that you have not shown that I have ever done anything for the sake of doing damage to Wikipedia.
#An irrelevant edit war that got a little heated is no worse than you wheel warring and talking down to people on your talk page as if you were better than them.
#The fact that others agreed my RfC was trolling doesn't mean that WP:TROLL is wrong. Did you also notice how they pretty much jumped in the way of a bullet to defend AMIB in that? They liked AMIB, and their form of defense was a good offense.
#How do I know that it is inappropriate to repost it? Because the Almighty Admin told me so? Okay, why don't you tell me not to breathe and then block me if I do.
#And? You had no authority or right to silence me on my user talk page for being sarcastic and talking back to you. Can you tell me what I was disrupting with my sarcasm? Because it must have been something, because you blocked me for 48 hours.
#And? You had no authority to reblock me after another admin unblocked me. It says so in Wheel war, you are NOT to do it. Being an admin does not mean that you can take the ignore all rules policy as if it means to do anything you want no matter what.
#The only reason you undid the block was because of a heavy amount of flak over a 96 hour block for me doing something you couldn't even prove I did.
#No matter how strongly you feel I deserved a block, there is no policy I have broken or guideline I did not follow on Wikipedia. However, in the blocking of me and the events following it, you violated several policies. So it would turn out that you have done far more to damage Wikipedia than I.
#A compromise? There was nothing to show that I violated any policy whatsoever, compared to several policies that you broke in order to keep my blocked and silenced. A good compromise would be to give up while you still could and unblock me instead of ignoring all of the policies you broke and risking your adminship. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Response 

message: I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response to this RfC. I have a lot of respect for you, and considering all the shouting that's gone on here, it means a lot to me to have someone really take a look at all that's happened as in-depth as you have. I respect your opinion, and I thank you again for your time. --InShaneee 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, of course, and thank you in return for your comments. Having seen your work in the months I've been active here, I thought this was a situation in which a user/sysop-conduct RfC could lead to a useful result (too often they are just miserable for everyone involved), so I was glad to try to contribute some balanced remarks, and I hope they prove helpful to you and any other editors who may read them. Newyorkbrad 06:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Newyorkbrad 

message: Is this issue basically finished? Can I close it? ---J.S (t|c) 17:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks... Addhoc 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly not. You were involved in the discussion and thus should not judge when it is finished. Additionally, there were comments as recent as yesterday. Let it take its course and we'll retire it when it's good and ready. Andre (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not judging it's finished.  I'm asking here. Apologies have been shared back and forth on talk pages and it seems like a good time for it to pass away. ---J.S (t|c) 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Link inserted for clarity Addhoc 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, normally a RfC isn't closed, merely removed from the list. I would suggest the RfC should be kept on the list for a few more days. Thanks again... Addhoc 16:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So thats it! InShaneee calls two people Douche, wheel wars (whatever that is), and continues to be generally uncivil to non admins and what happens to him? NOTHING! this is a joke of a process! He banned me for 72 hours for incivility then called me a douche, he refuses to explain his dicision makeing and bans you if you Dare question him(he has done this to several people). Admins should be held to a higher level of account not none at all as is the case here.Hypnosadist 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An RfC is supposed to be part of the dispute resolution process, if following this incident InShaneee behaves, then no further action may be necessary. However, if his conduct hasn't improved, then I would suggest we should take the case to ArbCom... Addhoc 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok but who is going in InShaneee's words is going to "babysit" him to make sure he does not misbehaves or if he does its noted and delt with? Also his deletion of content from other users talk pages has not been talked about, this has resulted in a lot of users getting bans off him as they complain about it(often uncivilly) as it is an act of vandalism. Is this going to be covered in the definition of misbehaving?Hypnosadist 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything more than occasionally looking through his contributions for disruptive conduct is required. Obviously, we should avoid stalking, but there's nothing wrong with occasionally reviewing another editors contributions... Addhoc 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, J. Smith, apologies really weren't shared "back and forth"; InShaneee has never chosen to apologize for calling Hypnosadist a douche, or apologize for blanking my comments under the logic that I must be baiting him and making it difficult to get anything done on the Paper Mario TTYD page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done...? 

message: I'm a nobody here, but most people have treated me very well. InShaneee, however, seems to have real issues dealing with anyone who shows the least sign of insubordination. I was stunned to discover that he was an administrator. Take a look at Talk: Spiritualism#WikiProject ratings--actually the whole discussion is not visible, since InShaneee reverted one of my comments (twice). Of course, maybe I was the jerk, one never knows. Maybe in the academic world we are a bit more frank than the norm in Wikipedia, please let me know.  Anthon.Eff 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk: Spiritualism

message: Time to close I feel. --Spartaz 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely, overdue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm fine with it being closed this time.  Thanks for posting and asking for general consensus.  KP Botany 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall we delist this?