User talk:Shrike/Archives/2011/September

Template-warning Sean
Shrike, template-warning Sean is extremely bad idea, especially taking into account that his revert, in my opinion, is justified and policy-based. Sean is one of the best editors around, and you'd better to maintain good working relations with him. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want to me to strike this?Even he is right he broken 3RR rule.But I will strike this if you think its not appropriate --Shrike (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you to strike it, but the decision is yours. I think Sean action was not disruptive, and the warning and edit-warring report are doing no good to Wikipedia, broadly understood. Also, Sean is very cooperative editor, if you think he made a mistake - ask him for clarifications, instead of running to admins. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about WP:AN3 report? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed though I still think its wrong to edit war.--Shrike (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If Sean is wrong, please talk to him. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert of declined unblock request
Why did you do this?-- Jac 16888 Talk 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea maybe I did it by accident I have reverted myself--Shrike (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries-- Jac 16888 Talk 11:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How goes?
Mate, I'd recommend to reduce administration-related activity, and concentrate on articles. See, one who pops all the time at AE and SPI will be seen as a trouble maker after all. Take this as "second opinion" :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem,Do you think its OK that I welcomed user:Modinyr and gave him a general advice?--Shrike (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your emails
I didn't have time to address those due to RL issues, so I forwarded them to another SPI clerk for review. His conclusion is that while there are legitimate grounds for suspicion, and would have warranted a checkuser investigation had the data been available, the evidence is insufficient for a DUCK block, and the checkuser data on the suspected master has become stale. In the future, please submit this kind of reports to SPI for better tracking and response time. T. Canens (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)