Please leave a message at the beep... "Beep" --Moby
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not feel that this is an innappropriate link for the Ubud article. The Sacred Monkey Forest is a major temple complex and the site was put up by the the local banjar (village government). They probably should have used .org. As the talk page is inactive, there is no one to talk to about this there. I'm going to re-add the link and hope you will talk to me before simply removing it again. --Moby 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Moby Dick I am going to trust you here. But you must know that I am merely reverting suspicious links. Sorry if you got caught up with the rest of the spam. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand that link spam is a problem. I was there last year and just noticed the site the other day (it is brand new). --Moby 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make silly statements concerning the purported currency of this micronation. There is plenty of available evidence to the contrary. --Gene_poole 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat
You've made three edits in two days that relate to Cool Cat in one way or another. This is in direct violation of your Arbcom ruling. I have blocked you for one week from editing. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- The three edits in question were:
- Moby remarking "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to his RfAr case (but note the consensus where this was discussed: Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
- Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (you do not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
- Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.
- I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but you have done so anyway, just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" over the complaint that CC had repeatedly blanked and then protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.
- No neutral admin chose to declare the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. You declared them such elsewhere, in a post you wouldn't even sign your own name to. And you are not a neutral admin.
- Bastique, you nominated Cool Cat for Commons admin [1], and have since then loyally defended him from repeated complaints of admin abuse as merely "errors of judgment" [2] [3]... while cautioning or even threatening to block those who bring up these complaints [same cites], so complaining of Cool Cat's admin abuse is clearly a much more severe offense to you than CC's admin abuse itself.
- This shows you to be partial, not impartial. You should have recused yourself as an admin in every issue involving Cool Cat, due to your conflict of interest, not jumped in to exert your admin powers on his behalf – which constitutes admin abuse on your part.
- I urge you to withdraw your block of Moby Dick, and to apologize to him for your most improper action, and not to repeat this unseemly partiality in your official actions.
- Yours has not been the fair and impartial behavior one expects of a leading candidate for Steward. – SAJordan talkcontribs 09:39, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).
- Bastique, I now see that you also altered Moby's endorsement to delete evidentiary links Moby was offering to Elaragirl's summary list – in effect, you destroyed evidence that the RfC participants might otherwise have seen. This could unfortunately suggest another possible motive for your blocking Moby: to keep Moby from restoring the links or drawing attention to their deletion. It was not your place to alter others' endorsements, or remove their links, on that RfC. – SAJordan talkcontribs 10:37, 9 Dec 2006 (UTC).
unblock
Moby Dick~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is unjustified, is being discussed all over (AN/I, for example), and I am unable to participate.
Decline reason:
You can respond via this talk page, as is customary for blocked users. Someone will transfer your comments over if they feel that they're relevant. -- Ral315 (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
- and thanks, User:SAJordan. --Moby 07:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)