| Revision as of 20:56, 29 March 2010 editQuotient group (talk | contribs)197 edits →FYI: Ridiculous← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 29 March 2010 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →FYINext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| A checkuser has determined that {{User|Quotient group}}, {{User|Matilda}} and {{User|Maud}} are very likely sockpuppets of {{User|A.K.Nole}}; and that {{User|Dewey process}} and {{User|Rhomb}} are probably sockpuppets of {{User|Mister Collins}}. The information from checkuser will now be passed onto a member of the arbitration committee and some accounts might be blocked as a consequence. Thanks, ] (]) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) | A checkuser has determined that {{User|Quotient group}}, {{User|Matilda}} and {{User|Maud}} are very likely sockpuppets of {{User|A.K.Nole}}; and that {{User|Dewey process}} and {{User|Rhomb}} are probably sockpuppets of {{User|Mister Collins}}. The information from checkuser will now be passed onto a member of the arbitration committee and some accounts might be blocked as a consequence. Thanks, ] (]) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :This would be more frightening if it were not so laughable. You already tried to work up the Nole connection in a previous, failed, SPI case by adducing as "evidence" that we lived in different towns. Apparently now I'm also someone who contributed just once five years ago and a retired admin. Do you just make it up as you go along? ] (]) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | :This would be more frightening if it were not so laughable. You already tried to work up the Nole connection in a previous, failed, SPI case by adducing as "evidence" that we lived in different towns. Apparently now I'm also someone who contributed just once five years ago and a retired admin. Do you just make it up as you go along? ] (]) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::You can talk to the checkuser directly. It's ]. Or you can try talking to ] who's dealing with this at the moment. | |||
| ] (]) 21:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 29 March 2010
Your squabble with another user
Hello. It's pretty clear that you are deliberately trying to get a rise out of User:Mathsci. He's been around here a lot longer than you have and deserves some leeway. Just drop it. Rhomb (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Two groundless failed SPI cases; one groundless failed ANI case; stalking me at Topological group, Lagrange's theorem (group theory), Index of a subgroup, Thomas Octavius Prichard, Semigroup. Threats, abuse, insults, groundless accusations repeated ad nauseam. Are my edits to Herbrand quotient "creepy"? Semigroup? Garside element? John Brinkley (astronomer)? William Frend (social reformer)? Bewick Bridge? No. All this because I asked a polite question about copyrights and spotted a foolish mistake. And you want me to give this person "leeway"! Quotient group (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI
A checkuser has determined that Quotient group (talk · contribs), Matilda (talk · contribs) and Maud (talk · contribs) are very likely sockpuppets of A.K.Nole (talk · contribs); and that Dewey process (talk · contribs) and Rhomb (talk · contribs) are probably sockpuppets of Mister Collins (talk · contribs). The information from checkuser will now be passed onto a member of the arbitration committee and some accounts might be blocked as a consequence. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- This would be more frightening if it were not so laughable. You already tried to work up the Nole connection in a previous, failed, SPI case by adducing as "evidence" that we lived in different towns. Apparently now I'm also someone who contributed just once five years ago and a retired admin. Do you just make it up as you go along? Quotient group (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- You can talk to the checkuser directly. It's User:Nishkid64. Or you can try talking to User:Shell Kinney who's dealing with this at the moment.