Welcome!
Hello, Stramash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! Hydrogen Iodide 16:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you edited Wikipedia under another username? If so could you please tell me your previous/alternative identity. Best wishes, Counter-revolutionary 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Please comment on content, not the contributor. Irrespective of who you may incorrectly suspect me to be, your ad hominem attacks are unnecessary and are a smokescreen to the article under discussion. No further comments will be forthcoming on the matter of my identity, many thanks. Stramash 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I am not making ad hominem attacks, I am merely making an inquiry. --Counter-revolutionary 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Many apologies. I was alluding to your comments in the deletion debate, not the comment on this page. Stramash 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Interesting observation, you stated on User_talk:Counter-revolutionary "I have replied to your message on my talk page. Stramash 19:24, 21 August 2007". reffering to your above coment dated 19:16, 21 August 2007. However, you state I was alluding to your comments in the deletion debate, not the comment on this page. Stramash 19:34, 21 August 2007". History as follows;
- 19:34, 21 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Stramash (→Editing - cmt) (top) [rollback]
- 19:24, 21 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Counter-revolutionary (→Sockpuppets - cmt)
- 19:16, 21 August 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Stramash (→Editing)
- I am curious as to the nature of your previous accounts also. I'd also like to note that this is the second time [1] youve accused this user of attacks, which appears to be unwarrented. Please explain.--Hu12 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Pull in your horns, Hu12. Your peremptory tone is uncalled-for, as is your curiosity, which Stramash has no obligation to satisfy. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
- It isn't difficult to work out. The ad hominem attacks refer to this and that (and also this from another editor). The first two (obviously the third is from a different editor) are what I was alluding to in my message at 19:16. Do you consider attacking the credentials of someone who nominates an article for deletion to be an ad hominem attack? I do. You can be as curious as you like to the nature of alleged previous accounts, as I have neither confirmed nor denied that allegation nor do I have any intention of doing so. What I can say is that more than one administrator is capable of confirming there is no breach of policy involved. Stramash 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Hello Stramash. As I have done in the past, I'd like to offer my services, as an uninvolved administrator, in drawling a line under this immediately. If you would like to inform me privately, by email, of any previous accounts you have edited under, I will keep this entirely confidential but confirm there is no breach of policy involved. Of course, you and under no obligation to do so, and are welcome to decline this offer without any implication of impropriety. Its simply often less hassle for everyone concerned to do it is this way. Rockpocket 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Many thanks for your offer. I have already contacted one of the administrators concerned and asked them to step in here. I wondered where Hu12 suddenly sprung from, and I see this is also being discussed on a noticeboard. Is nominating this article for deletion really a misuse of process? Stramash 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It seems I was too late. Perhaps while Bishonen is here, they would like to confirm no breach of policy is taking place for the benefit of everyone else please? Stramash 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yup. I do confirm it. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
- Do you mean a newly formed account nominating an article for deletion? No, there is nothing wrong with that unless the nomination is frivolous. It doesn't appear to be frivilous to me, as there is a healthy debate on its notability. However, there is inevitably some controversy when a new account, clearly familiar with process, edits in a subject area under conflict. Simply because there is ample scope for abusive sockpuppetry (which would be a misuse of process). Rockpocket 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have confirmed more specifically in the WP:AN thread] that there is no breach of policy, no misuse of process, and no frivolity involved here. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
- There is no breach of policy, as Bishonen kindly confirmed. Is everyone satisfied now? Stramash 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.
For the Arbitration Committee
Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A case (The Troubles) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]