| Revision as of 10:20, 3 November 2010 editDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →On going SPI: done← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:30, 3 November 2010 edit undoDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits doneNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |indexhere=yes}} | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| == Request == | |||
| I am waiting one week, if by then the crap linking my name to porn websites and criminal gangs is not scrubbed i will seek legal advice on how to have that achieved. I will have no part of a site whic hallows a user to be smeared in this manner. Please perma block this account so i can`t return ] (]) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] (]) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers mate ] (]) 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Stuff for Communist terrorism == | |||
| Comrades!: a history of world communism By Robert Service Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response | |||
| <ref name="Gail M. Schwab">{{cite book|last1=Schwab|first1=Gail M. |last2=Jeanneney|first2=John R. |title=The French Revolution of 1789 and its impact |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ne3jNvz-gXAC&pg=PA293&dq=origins+of+revolutionary+terror&hl=en&ei=8oPBTOnJI9iN4gaA78DgCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false|date=30 June 1995|publisher=Greenwood Press|isbn=978-0313293399|page=293}}</ref> | |||
| <ref name="Andrew Silke">{{cite book|last=Andrew Silke|first=|title=Research on terrorism: trends, achievements & failures |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rSpfNJQ4CbAC&pg=PA206&dq=types+of+terrorist+communist&hl=en&ei=QBnCTKaYO4-V4Aal_5XqDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=types%20of%20terrorist%20communist&f=false|date=24 August 2004|publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0714653112|page=206}}</ref> | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --] 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Off2riorob == | |||
| With respect to , you may have missed the context that the precipitating action was an edit war involving Off2riorob's repeated insertion of dodgy material at ], for which he has now received a very strong warning under the climate change discretionary sanctions. . | |||
| To fully observe your "Remedy 3" topic ban it would be wise to step away immediately. I will remove your comment. --] 12:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You will do no such thing. I am commenting on a proposed sanction on an editor. I am not commenting on a CC article at all, thank you ] (]) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'll take it to ] and see what the view is on this. --] 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please do, until such a time as clarification is given i expect you to unstrike my comments ] (]) 12:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| This is your formal notification . --] 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you taking the piss? You file an enforcement request against me instead of just asking for clarification? Words fail me. ] (]) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I want you to understand that I don't think there's any question about this. You've broken your topic ban. You disagree with this, you clearly have every intention of continuing as at present, so the only thing to do is take it uninvolved admins, and that means filing a case at ]. They've specifically asked editors not to make freeform entries there. --] 13:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That`s bollocks tony, it would have been far easier to ask one of the arbs for clarification ] (]) 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I request clarification as the sole remedy. --] 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Right-wing terrorism == | |||
| You are being discussed at the ANI noticeboard. ] (]) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for '''following discussion at . You are banned from all discussions that involve, directly or indirectly, the subject of climate change on Misplaced Pages. Please do not violate this ban in the future.'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] 08:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| <Appeal moved to AN> '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Nuke ] (]) 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Sorry, mate. Don't see why there wasn't a way for the arbs to just clarify to you that you were half an inch over the line of your topic ban (and therefore give you a chance to stop on your own and not do it again). This whole thing is going bonkers; I think I'm about to de-watchlist the whole set of CC articles except for the few in areas that touch my professional work. I don't know enough to do consistent quality work in the others, this area's long since stopped being fun or interesting, and I think we're all getting a little too annoyed with the whole thing. ] (]) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Tell me about it, it`s not like i was doing it purposfully either, this block is shite enforced by the same ] (]) 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's just it (though I'm too much of a softie to use the rough language...). You can't be respected if you don't give respect. ] (]) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Can somebody tell me if i can be unblocked to work in my userspace only? It is a pain trying to create an article in word :O( ] (]) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Was curious, so I googled. (see also ) seems to let you edit in OpenOffice (which is a lot like Word) and then upload to WP or another MediaWiki project. Here's that says it's pretty good. | |||
| :Option B of course is to spend time doing a less-stressful hobby, which is coming towards the front of my table of options... though I enjoy the crowd at the geology articles so much that I don't think I'll ever give WP up entirely :) ] (]) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: If you use it and you like it, could you let me know? I'll do the same if get a chance to download it. ] (]) 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Course i will, i`ll give it a try over the weekend if time allows ] (]) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks very much! That's sooner than I think I'll get to it. ] (]) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well i`ve been trying this plugin out, it is no different than editing in a .txt file, which is what it is exported as. Until i am unblocked i can`t see how well the formating exports though ] (]) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sometimes i`m just plain stupid :o) I copied and pasted into my talk page and did a preview, formatting is saved just fine. ] (]) 11:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Does anyone know of a plugin which saves in the wiki format? So it looks like a preview? That would be a cool plugin, especially if you could format the refs as well with it ] (]) 11:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] case == | |||
| {| align="left" style="background: transparent;" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 02:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : If there's anything you'd like for me to copy to the page, please post it here and I'm sure someone will be glad to copy it over. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Block reset == | |||
| For evading your block as {{userip|81.94.201.92}}, your block has been reset. ] (]) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :And due to the personal attacks, you've lost access to this talk page for the duration. ] 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am reviewing the checkuser evidence relevant to this block. ] (]) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Courcelles thank you, and thank you Brad for checking this out ] (]) 20:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Well i see it has been archived now but this was my defence | |||
| This diff from TFD he says the same book is here on my talk page, so it is please note the timestamps. Now is it all so surprising that i would copy that over as it looks like a good source? The 9/11 thing, am i the only person here who thinks this was in fact the worst terrorist attack in the US? Is it really all that surprising that another editor would change that? | |||
| Tripe, come on am i the sort of person who says tripe? | |||
| TFD says the IP is from the uk, i traced it. It is in Gosporth I live in ] TFD lives in ] btw so i fail to see how an ip in the uk can be said to be me. | |||
| This appears to me to be a person who is acting like me, in the hope of getting me banned. It is most certainly not me and i would request a CU done to prove it. Thanks. ] (]) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Checkuser shows no technical evidence that would reflect socking. I have not reviewed the behavioral evidence, and am aware of this editor's prior problems as reflected in the ''Climate change'' arbitration decisions. However, the block extension should be reconsidered in light of the possibility that someone else was trolling by impersonating Marknutley's mannerisms in an attempt to provoke precisely this result. (I cannot offer any suggestions as to who that person might have been, if that is what occurred; there are no other edits on this IP.) | |||
| I note that although it is stated above that talkpage access was being revoked, this does not seem to have actually happened. ] (]) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, I did revoke it, then I restored it after Mark and I exchanged e-mails. If the technical information doesn't support socking, then I'd say the extension needs to be overturned, which would shorten teh block by 2 days, six hours, and ten minutes. ] 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks guys, is it possible to have it written that i have not in fact socked? ] (]) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We cannot prove that you did not sock. CU can only give positive evidence. In this case it has not, as pointed out by NYB above. I've added to the SPI for clarity. --] (]) 21:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::(edit conflict) I was correcting myself on the talkpage-access point and just hit an edit conflict with you (Courcelles). In checking the talkpage status I mistakenly looked in the protection log rather than the block log. | |||
| ::On a separate matter, I posted a question to Marknutley last night in the context of his arbitration clarification request. ] (]) 20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I missed it brad, were did you post? ] (]) 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Found it, in reply yes of course, it is why i stopped weeks before the case closed, to prove my good intent ] (]) 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that the checkuser data does not support the ban evasion block. And I would not have blocked based on seeing the checkuser information and MN on site comments in defense of the accusation of socking. As far as I'm concerned MN did not use an alternative account inappropriately unless further evidence is brought forward. So, he can say that he did not sock as far as I'm concerned. ]] 21:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, that's good enough for me. Changed the block back to its original expiration time. ] (]) 21:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks to everyone :o) finally a happy ending for me ] (]) 22:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| BTW would someone here tell the editors on ] that this is still wrong and i believe knowingly putting obviously wrong information into the wiki is not a good thing ] (]) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. ] (] <small>•</small> ] <small>•</small> ]) 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks man, good of you ] (]) 22:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Brad's question == | |||
| In case you hadn't noticed with all the drama, Brad asked if you would make an undertaking . --] (]) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I replied above, the answer is yes of course ] (]) 23:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::It appears that Roger Davies has posted 3 motions at that request; the last of which specifically mentions you. ] (]) 16:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well could you let him know i accept please? the motion 3 thing thanks ] (]) 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{done}}, but note that this has not yet received arb votes; they may support it, they may oppose it or they may amend it in the meantime. ] (]) 16:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks mate that`s very kind of you :o) ] (]) 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == To do == | |||
| ] Typically, right-wing terrorists are skinheads or right-wing hooligans. Needs changing to Typically, right-wing terrorists are skinheads, right-wing hooligans, youth sympathizers and intellectuals. per the source which tfd seems to have missed. It was reported he had ties to a Michigan militia group. needs changing to It was reported he had ties to a Michigan militia group. The group has stated that McVeigh may have attended some meetings and denied any further involvement with his actions. per the sources and for NPOV | |||
| :The first edit seems reasonable because it adds more information. I wonder though how the second edit sounds. The writers on right-wing terrorism make the point that they tend to gravitate toward right-wing groups, but generally have only a tenuous connection. I do not know why you added in the reference to the Michigan Militia in the first place. BTW regarding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, the Oklahoma bombing was the worst terrorist attack until the 9/11 attacks six years later. I will look for a source for this. ] (]) 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well if your going to have McVeigh in the article as a terrorist then you ought to also have why he is considered a terrorist, all the sources i looked at call him an extremist not a terrorist and that he worked alone. We really ought not to use just part of a source anyway, it is better to explain why he is considered a terrorist and which groups he is suspected of hanging out with ] (]) 08:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] to be added <ref name="Gus Martin">{{cite book|last=Martin|first=Gus |title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues By |edition=3rd|date=February 25, 2009|publisher=Sage Publications|isbn=978-1412970594|pages=22 524 439}}</ref> | |||
| :::McVeigh is not described in the article as a terrorist, he is described as a "right-wing extremist". He may be considered an extremist because of his beliefs, not his associations or actions, although those were guided by his belief system. All the sources describe the Oklahoma bombing as an act of terrorism. McVeigh did not work alone - ] was convicted as an accomplice. | |||
| :::I do not understand your objections to the article. It is sourced to articles about "Right-wing terrorism" in four separate academic books about terrorism. If you think all these sources are wrong, then find a source that disputes them. | |||
| :::] (]) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no objections to the article, but if McVeigh is described as an extremist and not a terrorist he ought not be in the article, just the bombing. I also request you stay off my talk page due to your accusations against me and your seeming desire to have any editor who disagree`s with your POV blocked . When my block expires this discussion can continue on the article talk page. ] (]) 15:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Ask for clarification=== | |||
| I thought mergers ran for a week and only uninvolved editors ought to close them out Must look into it ] (]) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Mark, I also saw that, it is a week usually and a user that commented in the discussion with a preference should not be the one to close it early. ] (]) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That`s what i thought, I`m not fussed about the right wing one, it is easily put right but the left wing one is a deliberate attempt to bypass normal WP procedure by creating the same article and then declaring ] a POV fork, a tad sad really as an article on left wing terrorism is to broad a brush as it would also have to incorporate eco-terrorism, animal rights terrorism and just about every form of terrorism by left leaning nutjobs ] (]) 23:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not aware of any formal procedure for "closing" merge proposals. Besides, what would be the result? Would it be the responsibility of the closing administrator to do all the laborious work of doing the actual merging? In fact, merging articles is one of the most difficult copy editing jobs on Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 23:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is always a formal procedure for everything on wiki. An uninvolved admin would decide on what the consensus is once the full week had passed, TFD is hardly uninvolved as both he and you are the ones creating this POV fork right? ] (]) 23:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a proposed guideline, and I think seven days is quite normal ] - ] (]) 23:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Interesting proposal, that could solve many POV-fork problems. However a "suggested merge" id not the proposed "proposed merge". -- ] (]) 23:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Needs to be turned into a disambiguation page which leads to all the subgroups which fall under this umbrella. ] ] ] ] (]) 09:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Irony=== | |||
| from an editor who has linked twice to holocaust denial websites twice that i know of, bit of a cheek really ] (]) 20:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :And even more ironically, the claim is a flat our lie. - the book has never been banned anywhere and ] prosecutor's office said they don't think the book is a Nazi propaganda... If you don't get an irony overload yet, the person caught in an attempt to smuggle Nazi symbols and books to Germany was Risto Teinonen, a well-known Finnish neo-Nazi and coincidentally a buddy of revisionist ] - who just happens to lead a ]. Guess the name of a wikipedian who is a member of said committee..? --] 10:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::That`s just plain weird, why would an anti fascist group hang with a known neo nazi? Unless they are trying to drum up some work perhaps :o) ] (]) 11:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also can`t find anything which calls Mart Laar a revisionist historian strangely enough ] (]) 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've always thought that "anti" in ] was accidental, as their views tend to be rather close to fascist in everything but the name. As for Teinonen/Bäckman connection, ] has a slight overview. ] has a longer story {{plainlink|url=http://www.ekspress.ee/news/paevauudised/eestiuudised/uheskoos-eesti-vastu-antifasist-backman-ja-natsimeelne-teinonen.d?id=27686741|name=here}}, but in Estonian. | |||
| :::I am no fan of ], more like the opposite. But I don't think anyone has called him a revisionist historian, as his views are just plain old mainstream views. I think the claim was made just in hopes to get Martintg banned again, same as the nonsense about ] being controversial (note how carefully it is implied - and yet no sources provided). | |||
| ::::--] 11:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looking at Petri`s stuff again, this strikes me as a peculiar statement ''as it introduced the disputed claim that the Soviet Union "occupied" Estonia in 1940'' since when was this actually disputed? take your pick on sources which do not seem to think it is disputed ] (]) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Misuse of Twinkle=== | |||
| and calling a good faith editor a ] ] (]) 18:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] Yes, i can see he looked ''Stalin's Genocides By Norman M. Naimark'' pages 71 and 72, sheesh ] (]) 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] and now the same POV pushers who try to excise anything which make commies look bad think the Holodomor is not the common english usage for stalins deliberate starvation of millions ] (]) 08:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Edit Warring=== | |||
| ] breaks 3r Now he is on 5 reverts way to edit war fifelfoo ] (]) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Just popping in == | |||
| Hi, Mark, I'm just popping in to say hello. I know you are riding out a two week block which is a shame. I didn't feel that either you or WMC needed this. Just thought you should know that. If I can help you in anyway please don't hesitate. Take care, --]] 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Crohnie, very nice of you. Obviously i can`t comment on the WMC thing but i do agree with your sentiments on the matter. Apart from being accused of socking the time off is ok, gives me time to marshall my thoughts and look up new sources :o) ] (]) 11:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw the socking thing. That caught me by surprise, I have to admit. But I don't believe you'd do that. :) You'll be back soon. Take care, --]] 11:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: notification of three motions posted == | |||
| Following a ], three motions have been ] regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors. | |||
| ''For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee'' --] (]) 19:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" style="background: transparent;" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you have nothing better to do than make shit up? ] (]) 20:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == More sockpuppet bollocks == | |||
| From TFD this is my response, i`d appreciate someone copying it over. | |||
| ] is no longer on my watchlist and my last edit was If i were going to sock this article do you not think i would perhaps have done it before now? | |||
| 95.143.195.64 can`t be me unless of course i`m magic. please note the time stamps. | |||
| ''Marknutley has voiced his opposition to the renaming this article on his talk page'' as have a lot of people on the article talk page. So is saying i don`t think an article ought to be renamed now good enough to call me a sockpuppet? | |||
| The previous SPI did have a CU done, i was cleared by ] This is just another fishing expedition by TFD who seems to be intent on having me banned from WP. I demand the admins looking at this sanction him for filing two bullshit SPI`s against me as on top of his recent ANI thread this amounts to harrasment. ] (]) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * - {{done}} - ] (]) 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you rob ] (]) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Responding to Petri`s allegations. | |||
| ] fail to see what his has to do with socking, those reverts were to remove self published source from the article which petri had inserted. | |||
| 72.20.28.22 look at the contributions, 3 articles edited which i have never touched. And it`s first edit to the mass killings article was in an edit war i had no part in . | |||
| I have no response to the selling of puppies allegations, i have not nor do i plan to sell puppies, what the hell is that all about? | |||
| This is a diff bomb which shows nothing, apart from two editors who would like to see me banned gaming the system to try and get this done. Would someone be so kind as to copy this over, thanks ] (]) 22:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * - {{done}} - ] (]) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks again mate, why are they saying i am selling puppies? I really am not getting this at all? ] (]) 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No idea, let it all finish, and ask for unblocking, at arbitration are suggesting your and WMC unblocking. ] (]) 22:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Jesus fucking christ I want that shit removed now. I will not have my name associated with the perverted shit petri just posted. This is my real fucking name and he is linking it to porn sites and i.raped.and.killed.your.sister.when.she.was.st0ned.biz for fucks sake, I WANT THIS STOPPED NOW ] (]) 22:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :No, he is not. He is discussing anonymising proxies. I'd say "calm down" if I expected it to have any effect ;-). --] (]) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::It`s all in there with my name stephan, anyone of my customers stumbling across that would not think he is discussing proxies. It looks like he is discussing me. Once this crap is out of the way whom do i ask to get it rev del`d? ] (]) 22:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::None of it is connected to you Mark. Let it finish, I will look and see if it is not required. ] (]) 23:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don`t even see why he had to post all that crap, i have mailed the oversight people and asked them to remove it as a BLP violation. I will not have my name even remotley tied to that shit that petri posted ] (]) 23:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| how many people does this tit think i am? And whats with asking another editor who wants me banned to help out this is fucking bullshit ] (]) 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, its election day/night, who will win. ] (]) 23:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| At this point it's outright harassment (especially after everyone else has stated that these most likely have nothing to do with Mark) and some serious BLP violations. Either one of these is enough for a block - a PREVENTATIVE block before he tries to associate Mark with any more weird and offensive sites. To me it also seems purely malicious but that's just my opinion. Anyway, since Mark is blocked, someone should file a report at ANI on this, the only consideration being whether or not Mark wants to have these gross associations repeated on other forums.] (]) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I want him to stop posting more sex crap and having it in with my name, it is not even possbile to defend myself now they have posted so many ip`s i will not be able to look through them all, this is just ridiculous ] (]) 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Looks like you has been totally cleared Mark. ] (]) 00:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == On going SPI == | |||
| Hello Marknutley, | |||
| I want to inform you that in doing follow up to the October 28, 2010 CU that I ran, I saw concerns and continued looking into the situation. I wrote to ArbCom on October 31st to ask for information and advise. Now that there is another SPI, I've shared my information with the Functionaries mailing list to get a wider set of opinions. Since this involves private information, I can not disclose it on site. But I wanted to let you know that there is a separate SPI being looked at different from the current one at SPI. I'll write to you by email and share a little more information. ]] 08:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I no longer care, the fact that those asswipes would put my name alongside perverted porn is sick, and now they are saying i am conected to the criminal underworld, this is a deliberate attack and smear of my name, i`m fucking done with wikipedia were users can smear people they don`t like and then they get away with it ] (]) 10:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:30, 3 November 2010
 Archives | ||||||||
Index
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I am waiting one week, if by then the crap linking my name to porn websites and criminal gangs is not scrubbed i will seek legal advice on how to have that achieved. I will have no part of a site whic hallows a user to be smeared in this manner. Please perma block this account so i can`t return mark (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)