Revision as of 18:30, 6 May 2006 editKhoikhoi (talk | contribs)71,605 edits update← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:15, 7 May 2006 edit undoKhoikhoi (talk | contribs)71,605 edits Metb82Next edit → | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
In light of recent sockpuppeting by {{User|Rex071404}} a/k/a/ {{User|Merecat}} to violate the permanent ban on his editing of ], I've the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- ] ] 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | In light of recent sockpuppeting by {{User|Rex071404}} a/k/a/ {{User|Merecat}} to violate the permanent ban on his editing of ], I've the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- ] ] 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
== Metb82 == | |||
Hi Dmcdevit. I'd like to inform you about another user, {{user|Metb82}}. He's the same guy who spammed the talk pages of 100 people to oppose my RfA. Anyways, today he left on a user's talk page. What should I do? Should I respond to it? The user has a history of personal attacks, (such as and ), he my user page once, and I've caught him using open proxies, such as {{user|59.144.164.185}} to disguise himself. And check his user page, because it doesn't get any better. —] 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:15, 7 May 2006
Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11
So
How the hell are ya? :) I haven't heard from you in awhile. Wassup? :) --Woohookitty 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been doing less admin stuff and more janitorial stuff. Specifically, I've been doing alot of work on User:Bluemoose's projects, especially the categorizing good articles project. As for NLP, it's goin'. We have a threatening revert war. *sigh* But we're trying to nip that in the bud. If anything else, the references look much better. --Woohookitty 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- User:Bluemoose/Uncategorised_good_articles is the categorization project. He just added 600 more. 5th go round. The never ending project. :) But I love it. --Woohookitty 04:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
See a list of fascists - you are included
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI; see also the changes in Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and the discussion. -jkb- 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You took previously part in discussions about the off-wiki NPA policy. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See
Thx, -jkb- 11:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Updates on Inanna
Ok, here's some updates today:
She left a message on my talk page. The part that stood out the most is the following:
You cannot even guess how many sockpuppets i've there at the moment.You cannot confirm everyone in case your relations.At least, i press money and hire a couple of people for this job and even make them admins.
She later left this message on an anon's talk page. And then after that this one, which is a bit ironic, because it's the same user she said "I AM NOT A JEW AND I AM %100 ORIGINAL TURKISH" to. Anyways, that's it for today. —Khoikhoi 00:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Actually, I've looked at that web board's terms of use (linked from the bottom of the page) and they prohibit hatred of any kind. That discussion is clearly in violation. I'm going to try to send them a report and get it taken down. I suggest you contact them as well. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, so are the "truth about the Armenians" and "no greeks and armenians" posts as well. Thanks a lot for your help. —Khoikhoi 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did notice! Thanks a lot. BTW, the ban for TuzsuzDeliBekir was totally justified, his previous username Hybridlily (talk · contribs) has a history of nothing but personal attacks, edit waring, and just general trolling. —Khoikhoi 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- You might be interested in this, it turns out Inanna is just talking to herself. Kurmanchi is her sockpuppet. —Khoikhoi 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did notice! Thanks a lot. BTW, the ban for TuzsuzDeliBekir was totally justified, his previous username Hybridlily (talk · contribs) has a history of nothing but personal attacks, edit waring, and just general trolling. —Khoikhoi 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, so are the "truth about the Armenians" and "no greeks and armenians" posts as well. Thanks a lot for your help. —Khoikhoi 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Messhermit's RFA
Hello there!
I’m writing regarding a RFA against my person, Messhermit. I have been absent from editing from Misplaced Pages for some time, due to Finals in College and for personal reasons (I needed to take a break, I don’t like lengthy discussions).
However, I found with the surprise that apparently the committee has reached a conclusion without giving me the opportunity to portray my side of the story. I tried to reach another of the parties involved in the arbitration, receiving a positive answer assuring me that the case and its outcome can wait until I finish my finals .
I now humble ask a chance to expose my case and not being judged with only one side of the conflict portrayed. I believe that Misplaced Pages is a fair place to work and that all this can be settle without reaching extremes. Please, I’ll be waiting for an answer. Messhermit
P.D. As a side note, I have my evidence on Notepad. I will be posting it in a couple of days.
Implementation notes
I think you made a mistake there, the remedy against me hasn't passed. --ManiF 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The probation has, the proposed topical ban has not. I put a commented out note that you may have missed: "<!--2.5 and 2.7 undecided as of yet-->". I plan to update it with the final result when all the votes are in. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- From what I understand remedy #2 and #5 should be listed as undecided as well since there are five active ArbCom members who haven't voted yet. --ManiF 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Only needed five supports to pass, but the point is moot in any case now, as there have been new voters while I was sleeping. Dmcdevit·t 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- From what I understand remedy #2 and #5 should be listed as undecided as well since there are five active ArbCom members who haven't voted yet. --ManiF 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Aucaman workshop
As you may have seen, I made some proposals on the Aucaman Workshop page. Could you give me some brief feedback if this is going to be considered and whether you think any of it has a chance of affecting the final outcome at this stage? Thanks, Lukas 07:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Of course, I'm a bit disappointed - as for the late timing, let me point out that I submitted something much along the same lines (only less formally) much earlier, on the Proposed decision talk page, immediately after the first proposals had been made. Should I have put it on Workshop from the start? It's of course quite unfortunate that whatever proposals or requests any of us has submitted anywhere on these pages has been immediately submerged by a heap of drivel from various sides :-( One problem (I think for all of the parties) in this case has been that we never got much overt feedback from the committee about which of our arguments were actually reaching their destination, so people felt compelled to go on and on and on arguing and submitting evidence in defense of this or that. Ceterum censeo Aucamam non esse expellendum... Lukas 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The truth of the matter is that the raw evidence is the most useful, the arguments are less so, but once it becomes screens of screens of bickering, it's mostly useless and not worth the arbitrators' time. Dmcdevit·t 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that, and that's exactly why I didn't press my proposals earlier. But now I'm left with the slightly bitter feeling that the smokescreen bickering tactics of the other side has actually succeeded in preventing the committee from taking note of some things that I still find were clear and compelling. For instance, I still find it difficult to understand why Aucaman is censured for incivility when Kash is not, or why Zereshk gets off Scot-free with his involvement in the "Iranian noticeboard" (which, to me, is still the heart of the matter, much more than any particular edit war). Lukas 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please check your messages
Could you check your e-mail, please? I've asked you a question about something I'd really like to know. Thanks, Bishonen | talk 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).
Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk · contribs) RfAr #4
In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Metb82
Hi Dmcdevit. I'd like to inform you about another user, Metb82 (talk · contribs). He's the same guy who spammed the talk pages of 100 people to oppose my RfA. Anyways, today he left this message on a user's talk page. What should I do? Should I respond to it? The user has a history of personal attacks, (such as this and this), he vandalized my user page once, and I've caught him using open proxies, such as 59.144.164.185 (talk · contribs) to disguise himself. And check his user page, because it doesn't get any better. —Khoikhoi 05:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)