| Revision as of 14:03, 26 October 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 3d) to User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 37.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:22, 2 November 2012 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Personal attack on an arbcom page: + 1 diffNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| G'day NuclearWarfare, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at ]? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, ] (]) 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | G'day NuclearWarfare, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at ]? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, ] (]) 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :It appears to have closed by another user; would you like me to take another look? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | :It appears to have closed by another user; would you like me to take another look? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Personal attack on an arbcom page == | |||
| Hi NW. These diffs on ]: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| appear to be personal attacks on me by Zeromus1. Please could these comments be redacted and the user in question advised not to make any similar comments in the future? AE sanctions disallow them from making ''any'' comments about me off arbcom-related pages. At the moment they seem to be exploiting a loophole, where arbcom-related pages are exempt from sanctions, to continue the disruption that AE sanctions were presumably enforced to prevent. Thanks in advance, ] (]) 09:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:22, 2 November 2012
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Antidiskriminator at AE
G'day NuclearWarfare, can I ask you and the other admins that have commented on this report to keep an eye on the current RM at Talk:Territory_of_the_Military_Commander_in_Serbia#Proposing_a_move_in_good_faith? It was agreed it would stay open for 14 days, but it is now nearly 21 days, and most admins with a sense of self-preservation may have taken one look and hit the back button. It might be appropriate that closure there (whichever way it goes) is done by an admin from the AE discussion so that there is consistency between the decisions, particularly if a move ban is implemented. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to have closed by another user; would you like me to take another look? NW (Talk) 05:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack on an arbcom page
Hi NW. These diffs on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case:
appear to be personal attacks on me by Zeromus1. Please could these comments be redacted and the user in question advised not to make any similar comments in the future? AE sanctions disallow them from making any comments about me off arbcom-related pages. At the moment they seem to be exploiting a loophole, where arbcom-related pages are exempt from sanctions, to continue the disruption that AE sanctions were presumably enforced to prevent. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)