| Revision as of 21:32, 25 December 2007 editEupator (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,166 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:54, 27 December 2007 edit undoJohn Vandenberg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,507 edits a quick noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| It is OBVIOUS that it is Adil, and seems that after the evidence was presented no Admin is ready to even read or take any action. Azizbekov was banned on the bases that he was a ''banned member'', which he was not, and never confirmed nor was the behavior similar to any previously banned user. This guy acts like Adil, has the same theories, the same positions, the same behavior, the same vile sarcastic tone... This account was registered hours after it was confirmed that the result of the first arbitration case will be his banning. If you guys are going to leave this guy here, then I want a reevaluation of the banning some other users with a lot less evidence who were supposed to be socks of banned users.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 21:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | It is OBVIOUS that it is Adil, and seems that after the evidence was presented no Admin is ready to even read or take any action. Azizbekov was banned on the bases that he was a ''banned member'', which he was not, and never confirmed nor was the behavior similar to any previously banned user. This guy acts like Adil, has the same theories, the same positions, the same behavior, the same vile sarcastic tone... This account was registered hours after it was confirmed that the result of the first arbitration case will be his banning. If you guys are going to leave this guy here, then I want a reevaluation of the banning some other users with a lot less evidence who were supposed to be socks of banned users.--<big>''' ] '''</font></big><sup><small>]</sup></small> 21:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :A quick note: I said I would look into this; I will, and I have started. Also, admins are not a bunch of automations all programmed with the same rules; each of us has different thresholds that a user must cross before we will ban them. I will first be attempting to verify they are the same person to a high degree of accuracy, and if I cant do that satisfactorily, I will be looking at whether the user is crossing the line into non-useful contributions too often to be worth putting up with. ] (]) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:54, 27 December 2007
This does indicate a link to Baku State University; why do you think that is something new? John Vandenberg (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because since he started on May, even if it were that he didn't use an open proxy, checkusers can not find any link between his previous account and Ehud because he changed location. - Fedayee (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is: on what basis do you assert that he has changed location? John Vandenberg (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's my two cents regarding that. First look at this: Moscow: "a post-doctorate fellow in energy security studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) Institute of Energy Politics and Diplomacy"
Adil currently splits his time between Washington, D.C. and Houston, Texas, where he works for an international energy consulting firm.
I think this is a give away that he is Adil: You're free to be either obsessed with or pretty much obviously impressed by him, but please stop dragging me into "being" someone I am not just NOT.
It is OBVIOUS that it is Adil, and seems that after the evidence was presented no Admin is ready to even read or take any action. Azizbekov was banned on the bases that he was a banned member, which he was not, and never confirmed nor was the behavior similar to any previously banned user. This guy acts like Adil, has the same theories, the same positions, the same behavior, the same vile sarcastic tone... This account was registered hours after it was confirmed that the result of the first arbitration case will be his banning. If you guys are going to leave this guy here, then I want a reevaluation of the banning some other users with a lot less evidence who were supposed to be socks of banned users.-- Ευπάτωρ 21:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- A quick note: I said I would look into this; I will, and I have started. Also, admins are not a bunch of automations all programmed with the same rules; each of us has different thresholds that a user must cross before we will ban them. I will first be attempting to verify they are the same person to a high degree of accuracy, and if I cant do that satisfactorily, I will be looking at whether the user is crossing the line into non-useful contributions too often to be worth putting up with. John Vandenberg (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)