Scott Stevenson wrote:
The fact that Raphae1 (Wegmann) spammed an almost exclusive list of Muslims about his "Persecution of Muslims" list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipidian&diff=prev... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&diff=prev&a... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arno&diff=prev&o... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgulerdem&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremygbyrne&diff=pr... Without ever informing the actual admins on his list of his having created it, make the "hit list" comparison particularly accurate.
Well, you did that already for me, didn't you?
After this "hit list" was deleted, rather than accept the deciscion to do so (which other than himself and User:Striver no one rejected) he continued on strongly trying to resurrect it (without ever having acknowledged that his initial actions were wrong).
I don't know how you define a "hit list", since according to http://dictionary.reference.com a "hit list" can be both, a list of potential victims and a list of designated targets, but I sincerely hope, that you don't assume I tried to compile a list of admins, who I planned to attack in the future.
<snip/>
Your droning on is really beating on a dead horse over this and if you continue to conduct yourself as you have been and do not follow the advice of your fellow contributors as far as trying to form a consensus for your actions then it is safe to say that the likelyhood for your eventually becoming permanently blocked is very good.
That sentence doesn't really make sense to me. Am I supposed to stop what you call "droning" respectively "beating on a dead horse" or am I supposed to try to form a consensus? Or is the likelyhood for becoming permanently blocked very good either way?