| Revision as of 04:33, 17 September 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Administrative abuse, policy violations, and vandalism: Seems to have been restored.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:58, 28 December 2006 view source Kurykh (talk | contribs)Administrators41,200 edits changed to redirect | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| ==Diff for CBDunkerson's viewing== | |||
| Yep CBD, you sure were right about the willingness to follow policy on ]. That must explain this edit, hmm? | |||
| ==Unblock now== | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|I evaded the last block how exactly? Under what account exactly? You can prove this which diffs exactly?|decline=Per ] presented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Well that makes the case, doesn't it? == | |||
| Instead of addressing the question, it just gets added to the list. An even stronger argument as far as I can see that you're just out to cause disruption here instead of address the issues that have been raised about your behaviour and change to being a productive editor and contributor. ++]: ]/] 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What exactly is the question? TenOfAllTrades refused to provide his email, insisting that this was more transparent. He challenged me to provide my evidence, so I have. You engage in personal attacks and incivility, and expect to be exempt from Misplaced Pages's policies because you are an administrator. Tony Sidaway lied about me being a proven sockpuppeteer, and deleted my evidence, so his actions are added to the list. ] 15:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The question is, why should the litany of alleged abuses above, completely one sided and (for the ones I spot checked) completely without basis in fact, be allowed to remain on a user page? They, in toto, form an attack page, which we don't allow. You can make your case civilly, sure, but this manner isn't it. If you think you have a case, there are mechanisms for dispute resolution. Diatribes on user pages are not part of that mechanism. Especially when you delete responses to them, you don't get to have screeds of this sort. ++]: ]/] 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you arent going to provide a serious response, dont respond at all. You dont have to a right to delete what is in effect an RFC page on the egregious violations on Vicente Fox. I have made my case civilly, I am not the one vandalizing other users' talk pages. As soon as this block wears off I'm going to formally start an RFC. At the end of which, assuming you dont abuse your powers, several administrators will be desysopped and WP:BLP will be enforced. If you are not just here to troll on my talkpage, alert CBDunkerson that WP:BLP is being violated once again on Vicente Fox. See the link I provided for CBDunkerson above. ] 15:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:58, 28 December 2006
Redirect to: