Revision as of 16:50, 31 May 2009 editMolobo (talk | contribs)13,968 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:56, 31 May 2009 edit undoLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits →Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo: to Piotrus.Next edit → | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++]: ]/] 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ::You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++]: ]/] 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::Thanks for your input, Lar. Have a nice day! ] (]) 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | :::Thanks for your input, Lar. Have a nice day! ] (]) 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
You too, and thanks again! ++]: ]/] 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | ==]== | ||
Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
::I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment ]. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ::I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment ]. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. ] (]) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | :::The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. ] (]) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::Piotrus: I think AdjustShift gave you the best answer that can be given right now. I'm not directly involved in the investigation but from seeing discussion, I know it's not run of the mill, and these things sometimes take time to work through. Sorry if that's confusing, but please don't give Adj. a hard time about it, ok? Thanks. ++]: ]/] 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== DYK for Claude H. Van Tyne == | == DYK for Claude H. Van Tyne == |
Revision as of 16:56, 31 May 2009
Archives |
Thekohser/MyWikiBiz
Please see my reply to your blocking Greg from his talkpage here . Ripberger (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absent a clear and compelling reason to keep the ban in place, I plan to change this. See User_talk:Thekohser. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) I think Thekohser/MyWikiBiz should be allowed to edit one talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm willing to lift the block on the talk page of Thekohser. Can I? AdjustShift (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Lar. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You too, and thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo
As an admin, I'd like to request a copy of this "secret evidence" :) Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'll not be closing the SPI case. The case has been deferred to the CUs. AdjustShift (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody has told you specifically not to close (at least I have not, heck my last message to you was a suggestion on how to close as it would have been your first close), you can close it if you wish. I believe that there is an email to functionaries-l, and this has also been forwarded to arbcom (because of the existing case). I don't think a close of this case would be a good idea though without arbcom's endorsement of the result as there is an active case going and molobo has been around for quite a while. —— nixeagle 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- So what does this have to do with my request? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. My question is simple, and so should be your answer: "Yes, here you go" or "No, I'll not give you the evidence (that other admins have seen) because...". Please chose one of those and give me proper reply :) Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes you can't answer questions in yes/no, my dear. You've to wait for sometime. When the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Piotrus: I think AdjustShift gave you the best answer that can be given right now. I'm not directly involved in the investigation but from seeing discussion, I know it's not run of the mill, and these things sometimes take time to work through. Sorry if that's confusing, but please don't give Adj. a hard time about it, ok? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Claude H. Van Tyne
On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude H. Van Tyne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:BABEL
I gather that English is not your native language. Please consider BABEL templates to indicate this in your userboxes - they also help of one wants to send you sources or such in non-English language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- English is not my native language, but I may speak American. :-) I can't use BABEL templates because of privacy concerns. On the English-language Misplaced Pages, I use sources in the English language only. AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Questions
- 1-Is this your first SPI case ?
- 2-You commented that you are not neutral. Shouldn't the clerk remain neutral ?
- 3-Why did you congratulate Scinurae for "evidence" without waiting for my comments and defence ?
- 4-Why was "super sekret evidence" provided to a user with history of team taging with Scinurae against Polish users ?
- 5-As I understand you are not experienced with Misplaced Pages-as you are from August 2008, correct ?