User talk:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. This account is being used by multiple persons (primary and high school age students) in blatant violation of WP:SHARE. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The account has not been used since 2011. Indeed, apart from editing the edit notice for this page, its editing history is restricted entirely to a period of less than three weeks in September 2011, and all but one edit occurs in the course of two successive days. Did you just happen by chance to have reason to resurrect this dormant account just at the time when questions were raised about it, or did you request an unblock on an account that you would not otherwise have been touching, to make a point? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still pretty much a unilateral move that certainly wasn't what was suggested at the noticeboard. Further, the lack of recent editing argues that there was no immediate need for a block.  Not a good block. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson: You've taken a look at the contributions, so you know that it was not "resurrected" for any malicious purpose. It was not used last year because there was no good purpose for which I could have used it in the educational program in which I was working. I requested the unblock because, yeah, I would have liked to have used it at some point in the future. Alas. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Hobit, not a good block, based on the fact that there was a discussion at the noticeboard and an agreement to go to an RfC/U to determine the community's position on this.  GregJackP   Boomer!   22:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "agreement" was one or two people saying they'd start a RfC/U about completely changing the existing rules. In the meantime, the account was blatantly violative, and had the potential to mess up the copyright status of any article which it had ever been used to work on. I did what I felt I was obligated to do, until and unless the Foundation's folks agree that such a thing is legal, and the consensus of the body decides it's a good thing to completely change one of our long-standing and deeply ingrained rules. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read the discussion. Of course, one of our five pillars (WP:IAR) is older than WP:SHARE.  The account did not have any use in the last 12 months, was not hurting any part of the project, nor causing any disruption, nor in compliance with WP:BLOCK (specifically bullet 4 "where there is no current conduct issue of concern").  This should have been discussed with the community first.  Of course, since there is no realistic recourse against admins, it will stand.  But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) 5 users said IAR, 6 if you inclde me, 7 if you include the closing admin who seemed to agree, against 3 people who seemed to have an issue, 4 if you include IZAK bringing it up as a means to distract from the RFC/U on his friend (but then we'd need to add Bob who thought that IZAK's complaint was baseless). (2) An RFC, not an RFC/U. (3) You could have raised the issue with me. It's not as if I've attempted to hide my connection to the account. (4) In any case, the project was in no imminent danger considering the account had not been used in a year and a bit. (5) But, what does it matter anyway? This unilateral action, on top of the stellar performances put forward by several admins over the last week doesn't fill me with great confidence that I should be bringing any students here ever. Considering an admin's word is seen as golden, regardless of the nature of what was said, there doesn't seem to be any point arguing anyway. After all, I'm an "angry incompetent drunk" according to one brilliant admin, and it's not a personal attack because it could be true (the angry bit, I'll admit, is correct). So stuff it. Someone let me know if anything changes. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna
User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)