User talk:Sgeine

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)[reply]

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[edit]

To view what she cited as vandalism it can be viewed here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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[edit]

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 ^babelfish 04:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^babelfish 05:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, ok. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

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 reason:

What you are saying is that you refused to recognize the ban that was communicated to you and have contentiously edited about Helio for over a week without logging in. The ban applies to you, not just to this account, and this was indeed ban evasion. You call this "unsound and undiscussed" -- but I believe the ban was very much sound and was a rather friendly alternative to an outright indefinite block. If you want to appeal the ban, you should email a member of the Arbitration committee directly and request an appeal, which is rarely granted, but that's the way bans are typically appealed. In the meantime I see no reason to unblock you or set a time-limit on your block. Mango juice^talk 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 [1] but I'm not finding it at all. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And for full transparency (not that it matters much in this situation), Sgeine asked me to take a second look at this tonight via IM. Otherwise I wouldn't be editing the Wiki at the moment, due to it being a very busy week (ah, but had to get that Wiki fix in there one way or another ;) ) -- Ned Scott 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, I think I made it very clear that I have considerably more information about this situation than I can post publicly. I would strongly suggest that you let someone with an appropriate level of access (preferably OTRS or another trusted status) review the material if you believe there is cause for concern or take this for a wider review elsewhere. What I can say on-wiki is that it is clear that Sgeine has no business editing any article related to Helio, he was informed very clearly both in that diff you found and privately (because we were discussing personal information) that he was welcome to edit anything other than articles relating to Helio. I have a serious difficulty believing that he took several months off and then came back to the same articles, this time trying a different tactic to avoid being associated with his former account and yet all that was an "accident". Shell ^babelfish 11:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, its rather easy to make shadowy insinuations based on "secret" information wouldn't you say? That's like me saying I have secret information that I will not reveal which proves Shell is a drug dealer and based purely on that unrevealed information you should be vaporized a la 1984. Pretty weak wouldn't you say? I haven't seen you make the case on what I should and should not be editing. You and I had a disagreement based on content months ago (in which you and one of Helio's employees engaged in an edit war on) that you took way further than was necessary or supported by wikipedia policy as I've previously pointed out. Quite frankly shell, i haven't seen you substantiate any argument or point you've put forward. The fact that we're having this conversation right now on my account leaves your last paragraph self immolating on the floor. I can use any IP/Account name of my choosing but clearly do not. Shell, at every turn I've asked you to have an open and honest discussion. The bottom line, shell, is you haven't shown anything to support your original ban, you didn't follow proper protocol, it was totally arbitrary and comments like this "situation than I can post publicly" don't pass the straight face test. You know my email address, you know my IM, I've given you them both. I understand former employee Ron Marquez from Helio contacted you unhappy with the content I posted. The fact is, anything he may have said or implied is totally irrelevent to this discussion as is Helio's position on the matter of the content (or me). Wikipedia, you should know, is meant to be a totally independent source for information supported and created by the community (not helio corporate mandates) and Helio's employees should be given no more or less weight than any other user editing their page. If all you've got is whatever drama helio's sucked you into, i'm sorry. That has nothing to do with wikipedia policy and has absolutely no basis in decision making on topic or user bans since there was no actual breach of wikipedia policy that warranted the original ban.Sgeine (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up, this isn't "shadowy secret information" and as I indicated there are individuals who can review all of the emails and additional information. However, I do need to follow the foundation's privacy policy which means I don't have the option of simply posting this information about for everyone to see. I'm sorry that things haven't worked out for you here, you would have been very welcome to edit other areas but as I made clear to you early on, its not appropriate to import your dispute with Helio. Shell ^babelfish 13:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing this, I'm about to email Shell to ask some questions about the sensitive information. Mango juice^talk 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, whatever issues you're referring to (I have no idea since you won't share them with me) sound like personal ones and don't really have any bearing or place in this discussion. I'd like to keep this above board and only based on content. Nominating a redundant article for deletion and citing wikipedia policy isn't a personal matter. Its an issue of content and what is in line with wikipedia policy. I think this would go much easier if you would either recuse yourself or extricate whatever personal drama Helio's employees have sucked you into from this subject. I'd be happy to fill anyone in on the opposing side of that but I haven't yet because it shouldn't matter and you've stonewalled me from the beginning.Sgeine (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, I don't need to read the additional information that you have. From what I've gathered, you have given Sgeine a topical ban based primarily on his personal connections with Helio. However, from his conduct on-wiki, an indef block is too extreme. I don't care who he or what he's done in real life. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Sgeine has showed a strong POV against Helio and has edited to push it. I don't need to know why he's doing it: that he's done it is sufficient to me to justify a topic ban, and that he was then topic banned and not only refused to acknowledge it, but edited logged out for over a week to avoid it, and that he still does not intend to abide by the topic ban reinforces that decision. Mango juice^talk 12:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email, the email Shell sent you was dated August 1, yet you were editing with in the scope, a lot, since early October via your IP address. Mango juice^talk 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]