User talk:Conspandex: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:32, 27 November 2006

Dig Page

Can you provide me a link to the page? It will come in very handy at the current arbitration case. FeloniousMonk 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got deleted. You're a sysop. In Hillman's contributions, find his edits to a miscellany for deletion discussion. That will link to the page so you can undelete to view it.

Note. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone involved in the ArbCom case. I do not wish to be involved in the ArbCom case. I value my anonymity. This account has not violated any policy in any real way. If this account is a problem indef block it. It won't make any more edits anyway. But running a CheckUser would be 'fishing', and a gross intrusion.

Never thought you were, and I appreciate your helping out; it genuinely assisted me at the arbcom case. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspandex's first edit, made earlier today, revealed speculative personal information about another user, and alluded to a page deleted more than a month ago which also revealed speculative personal information, a blockable offense per the blocking policy, which says that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked". Posting another user's personal information without their consent is a type of harassment. If Conspandex is a sockpuppet, then the account contravenes WP:SOCK, which forbids the use of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies, like the blocking policy. Conspandex, you say you value your anonymity. Then please respect the anonymity of others. Tim Smith 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot hide behind a claim of anonymity to side-step complying with our policies and guidelines on self-editing, WP:AUTO and WP:COI, particularly when it is to conduct a pov campaign as is apparently the case here. It is simply a shabby attempt to game the system. Once again you're arguing for enabling these particular editors to be left to continue disrupting the project. And the editors you've been protecting for weeks, Asmodeus and DrL, are now before the arbcom where this matter will be settled. I'll be looking into the background of all involved parties in this matter as part of preparing and presenting my evidence there. FeloniousMonk 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 02:20, 27 November 2006 edit Tim Smith (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,313 edits →‎Dig Page: anonymity ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:32, 27 November 2006 edit undo FeloniousMonk (talk \| contribs) 18,409 edits →‎Dig Page: To Tim Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:Conspandex's first edit, made earlier today, revealed speculative personal information about another user, and alluded to a page deleted more than a month ago which also revealed speculative personal information, a blockable offense per the [[WP:BLOCK\|blocking policy]], which says that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked". Posting another user's personal information without their consent is a type of [[WP:HARASS#Types_of_harassment\|harassment]]. If Conspandex is a sockpuppet, then the account contravenes [[WP:SOCK]], which forbids the use of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies, like the blocking policy. Conspandex, you say you value your anonymity. Then please respect the anonymity of others. [[User:Tim Smith\|Tim Smith]] 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)		:Conspandex's first edit, made earlier today, revealed speculative personal information about another user, and alluded to a page deleted more than a month ago which also revealed speculative personal information, a blockable offense per the [[WP:BLOCK\|blocking policy]], which says that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked". Posting another user's personal information without their consent is a type of [[WP:HARASS#Types_of_harassment\|harassment]]. If Conspandex is a sockpuppet, then the account contravenes [[WP:SOCK]], which forbids the use of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies, like the blocking policy. Conspandex, you say you value your anonymity. Then please respect the anonymity of others. [[User:Tim Smith\|Tim Smith]] 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

			::One cannot hide behind a claim of anonymity to side-step complying with our policies and guidelines on self-editing, [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:COI]], particularly when it is to conduct a pov campaign as is apparently the case here. It is simply a shabby attempt to game the system. Once again you're arguing for enabling these particular editors to be left to continue disrupting the project. And the editors you've been protecting for weeks, Asmodeus and DrL, are now before the arbcom where this matter will be settled. I'll be looking into the background of ''all'' involved parties in this matter as part of preparing and presenting my evidence there. [[User:FeloniousMonk\|FeloniousMonk]] 03:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)