| Revision as of 02:14, 17 February 2008 editNewbyguesses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 editsm lorem ipsum← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:16, 17 February 2008 edit undoNewbyguesses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 edits user blanks the sandboxNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| drafty drafty-- | |||
| ==from ]== | |||
| Particularly in ], it is striking that ] is politely asked to stop making unsupported allegations, amounting to a personal attack on ], and yet SV does not ackowledge that these attacks should cease, and continues blithely to repeat them. No evidence appears ever to have been furnished to support these allegations. | |||
| (Specifically 1. That Cla68 had posted somewhere on some attack site | |||
| 2. that Cla68 lives in the same state as Wordbomb) | |||
| These, and other insinuations which were raised at Cla68's RFA can only have had an unjustified detrimental effect on that RFA. | |||
| No user other than SV makes these allegations, and no user can be convinced without evidence of the validity of these unsupported assertions made by SV. | |||
| So SV is certainly "guilty" of stubbornness, and of "poor judgement", if not of failing to assume, and exhibit, good faith ] applies. | |||
| Here SV vows to continue making personal attacks, after being asked not to, and refuses to support those allegations by making evidence available to all rightly-concerned parties. | |||
| from ] | |||
| ::::I didn't expect you to out him. What I'd rather you did was quit making the accusations. ] 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well then I'm sorry that, once again, I have to disappoint you. :-) It's clearly relevant, in an RfC that discusses someone's apparent support for a notorious banned user, that one of the few endorsements of that persons' account comes from a close associate of the banned user. It's also appropriate to offer the evidence to admins by e-mail given that it involves what appears to be someone's real name. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Has ] made good at any time on this offer to make this alleged evidence available by email to any Admin, and thus allow some scrutiny to take place as to the propriety of these Admin actions, and harassment of ]? | |||
| ==] makes unsupported allegations against ]== | |||
| One of the problems that besets all of this is the way in which it seems to have become | |||
| acceptable to make claims about other people without evidence (Mangoe.) | |||
| Has ] made good at any time on this offer to make this alleged evidence available by email to any Admin, and thus allow some proper scrutiny to take place as to the propriety of these Admin actions, and harassment of ]? | |||