| Revision as of 11:07, 27 June 2007 editGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,629 edits Tturbo, please take a cup of tea← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:23, 27 June 2007 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →Durova: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? ''"Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available."'' You are implying that I said what, exactly? --] 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? ''"Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available."'' You are implying that I said what, exactly? --] 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is ''I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions.'' I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct ] would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:23, 27 June 2007
Shortcut- ]
Recent spamming
Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following:
- The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems.
- The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated.
- Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a request for comment to solicit the views of additional editors.
- Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here).
- If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. Thatcher131 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages of users who remove his "request". He got me and Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this morning (Thanks to Lectonar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for cleaning it up!). Adam 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. ^demon 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. ^demon 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - Penwhale | 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. Daniel 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Durova
Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? "Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available." You are implying that I said what, exactly? --Justanother 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct WP:RFC would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. Durova 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)