| Revision as of 16:55, 27 August 2007 editJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits →F451s comments after some of the votes: take it to the arb← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:12, 27 August 2007 edit undoFahrenheit451 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,109 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::I have a large collection of diffs of F451's "greatest hits", in which he stalks, insults, and baits at least twenty different editors. If anyone gets sick of his tirades eventually and wishes to lodge a major complaint against his behavior, I'd be only too happy to contribute my two cents. (Of course, he'd just say we're all obviously part of the OSA "hatchet job" conspiracy.) ] 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::I have a large collection of diffs of F451's "greatest hits", in which he stalks, insults, and baits at least twenty different editors. If anyone gets sick of his tirades eventually and wishes to lodge a major complaint against his behavior, I'd be only too happy to contribute my two cents. (Of course, he'd just say we're all obviously part of the OSA "hatchet job" conspiracy.) ] 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::You could introduce it at the current related COFS arb if you want. Seeing as F451 has made himself a party to it and was actually the first to introduce "evidence". --] 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | :::You could introduce it at the current related COFS arb if you want. Seeing as F451 has made himself a party to it and was actually the first to introduce "evidence". --] 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::No Justanother, I am not a party to that arbitration, only one who provided some evidence. I think there is a clear pattern of tendentious editing by many cofs connected editors that shows their editing scientology related articles is a conflict of interest.--] 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:12, 27 August 2007
F451s comments after some of the votes
Why do you feel the need to comment after each person you think has a "pro CoS" viewpoint? Do any of us go around commenting about your "pro Freezone" viewpoint?HubcapD 04:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is called WP:HARASS and WP:DE. --Justanother 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a large collection of diffs of F451's "greatest hits", in which he stalks, insults, and baits at least twenty different editors. If anyone gets sick of his tirades eventually and wishes to lodge a major complaint against his behavior, I'd be only too happy to contribute my two cents. (Of course, he'd just say we're all obviously part of the OSA "hatchet job" conspiracy.) wikipediatrix 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You could introduce it at the current related COFS arb if you want. Seeing as F451 has made himself a party to it and was actually the first to introduce "evidence". --Justanother 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a large collection of diffs of F451's "greatest hits", in which he stalks, insults, and baits at least twenty different editors. If anyone gets sick of his tirades eventually and wishes to lodge a major complaint against his behavior, I'd be only too happy to contribute my two cents. (Of course, he'd just say we're all obviously part of the OSA "hatchet job" conspiracy.) wikipediatrix 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- No Justanother, I am not a party to that arbitration, only one who provided some evidence. I think there is a clear pattern of tendentious editing by many cofs connected editors that shows their editing scientology related articles is a conflict of interest.--Fahrenheit451 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)