| 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 | Revision as of 04:34, 17 September 2006 view source Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm Protected User talk:Freestylefrappe: Community banned editor Next edit → |
| (No difference) | |
Revision as of 04:34, 17 September 2006
Diff for CBDunkerson's viewing
Yep CBD, you sure were right about the willingness to follow policy on Vicente Fox. That must explain this edit, hmm?
Unblock now
Freestylefrappe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I evaded the last block how exactly? Under what account exactly? You can prove this which diffs exactly?
Decline reason:
Per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Netsnipe ► 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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. ++Lar: t/c 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. freestylefrappe 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. ++Lar: t/c 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. freestylefrappe 15:47, 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. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)