::If this wasn't common, I wouldn't bother. It's just one in a long line, I may reverse him. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::If this wasn't common, I wouldn't bother. It's just one in a long line, I may reverse him. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:Stop closing discussions you have involvement in. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:Stop closing discussions you have involvement in. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
::If you re-re-open this, I will block you for disruption. Discussion can continue on [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion review]] but the part where you force people to waste their time by threatening the restoration of unverified content if they don't maintain a majority in favour of policy is over. If it really is likely to be overturned, which I expect you know it isn't, someone other than you will reverse it. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Now you're threatening improper blocks, too? Any more disruptive acts you want to toss our there? Plan on blocking yourself? Or maybe a long-overdue resignation is in order? I may take this to Arbcom at this point, you continued abuse and threats are detrimental to the project. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering that user was unblocked by Jimbo himself just a few days ago, don't you think you should get permission from him before reblocking? What "legal intimidation" are you referring to, anyway? I haven't seen any from him. Everyking 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I was reblocking him because I disagreed with the unblock in the first place, that would be true (and I would be wheel warring), but I was blocking on the basis of behaviour (documented at WP:ANI) which occurred after the unblock - more to the point, an unblock of a second indefinite block, under which circumstances the user is clearly on very thin ice. I notified Jimbo on his talk page, but as I said there, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to be paralysed with fear and unable to stop further incivil behaviour from someone in the last chance saloon just because it was his name in the block log. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What behavior are you referring to, though? I have been following at least some of the discussion he's been involved in and haven't seen him doing anything wrong. Everyking 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thread, which I read before I even posted to your talk, is on AN, and none of the four links listed by Durova give any apparent support to your claim that he made legal threats; in fact, in two of the links he explicitly denies making legal threats. Possibly you are alleging subtle insinations in specific parts of the comments and I didn't detect them; if that's the case, could you give me specific quotes of the alleged threats? Everyking 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, um, sorry if I'm misinterpreting this, but were you poking fun at the murder of Bob Woolmer in that same thread? Everyking 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sort of nudge nudge, wink wink, I'm-saying-the-exact-opposite-of-what-I-actually-mean stuff that people who've been given a second (actually third) chance after being indefinitely blocked (twice) tend to use because they think we're all total morons who either won't see through it or will be too afraid to call them on it, and it's exactly the sort of thing that will not be tolerated from such users. And yes, you're misinterpreting. Sorry I sent you to the wrong board, though. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Kohs made his implicit threats explicit to me via email. You can ignore that if you want, since I can't prove it, but you should know that you won't be able to change my mind about what he meant when he already made it clear what he meant himself. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can believe what you want based on whatever communications you've had, but if the evidence doesn't exist on-wiki then you shouldn't have blocked. You acknowledge that he was denying it in the very posts you claim are evidence that he was doing it—isn't that a weird contradiction? Logically, why would a person even want to do that? If he wanted to make a legal threat, then doesn't simultaneously denying it defeat the purpose of it? And again, if legal threats do exist in those links in some form, please specifically quote them. It's exasperating to have someone post links they claim say one thing, then to look at them and see they appear to say something completely different, and not receive any clarification about how the original interpretation was reached. As for the Woolmer issue, it certainly looked like you were poking fun at it; if my interpretation of that was wrong, could you explain what you intended by it? Everyking 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the further evidence posted by others on the WP:AN thread have removed all doubt. If you want the block overturned, you need to post there and convince them that "You children are among the most paranoid, spineless people I have ever encountered" and "Get back to your Dungeons & Dragons game" are typical of productive contributors, and that someone who says things like "I'm sure their lawyers would love to hear them described as trivial" would never dream of engaging in legal intimidation. Those are specific quotes. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He already was a productive contributor, although his productive work was promptly reverted and deleted after the ban (although he did not make those edits as a banned user), so I don't feel I should need to argue that. Productive contributors get angry sometimes and say unpleasant things. Anyway, all that is irrelevant to the reason he was banned, which was legal intimidation. The third quote you provide could back up that claim if made in a certain context, but I'm not having any luck finding the edit, so I can't see the context of it. Was this from the e-mail he sent you? And I suppose you are not going to explain the Woolmer comment. Everyking 15:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend any more time on this conversation, I've already explained myself adequately. I understand that you can't post on AN, something I'd initially forgotten about, but I understand you can still use RFC if you're that desperate for Kohs to have the run of the place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not adequately explained the ban, which is something you have a responsibility to do. Can you point me to the edit in which he made the quote above, or tell me if it was made by e-mail? Everyking 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a greater responsibility to my head not to bang it against a brick wall. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
Could you please just unblock 202.76.162.34 now? Not only did you have to scare me even more by doing it on a 13th, but the block will end after the year 12's at my school leave! I want the block to end before they leave!
Could you please just do it!? Jc iindyysgvxc 07:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment
Your comment "the wikilawyers who think that "The world is flat" should be tagged {{citation needed}}" just made me laugh out loud. Thanks for giving me a good start to the day. Nandesuka 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby confirm that the copyright to the article on reference is owned by Solution UK Ltd. of which I am a director. (Solution UK Ltd. also own http://www.worldofclean.co.uk where the article is also published).
I also confirm that we wish to release the content under the GFDL in order that it may appear on your pages.
In that case you're free to re-add the information to Wikipedia wherever you want. I should re-emphasise before you do that any content you add can be freely edited and reproduced by other Wikipedia editors in line with our content content policies. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quality close
"No-one cares". Spot on. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, be civil, Jeff. Don't take it personally. Rockstar (T/C) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this wasn't common, I wouldn't bother. It's just one in a long line, I may reverse him. --badlydrawnjefftalk 20:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop closing discussions you have involvement in. --badlydrawnjefftalk 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-re-open this, I will block you for disruption. Discussion can continue on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review but the part where you force people to waste their time by threatening the restoration of unverified content if they don't maintain a majority in favour of policy is over. If it really is likely to be overturned, which I expect you know it isn't, someone other than you will reverse it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're threatening improper blocks, too? Any more disruptive acts you want to toss our there? Plan on blocking yourself? Or maybe a long-overdue resignation is in order? I may take this to Arbcom at this point, you continued abuse and threats are detrimental to the project. --badlydrawnjefftalk 21:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
