On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote: > 2007/6/18, K P kpbotany@gmail.com: > > > I was attacked to get me to shut up. Certainly it was a > > well-orchestrated, well, maybe not that well since it wound up being > > funny and ridiculous, but an attempt at a well-orchestrated gang up to > > get me to shut up and stop editing because I had the nerve to call > > someone on their bad conduct. > > > > This happens all the time to editors on Wikipedia. > > Could you please provide a link to your case so everybody can form his > own opinion about it? > > greetings, > elian > It's on my talk page, links galore.
But what is your editing name????? Where is your Talk: page?????
The issues raised about Jay were concerning his access to tools that gave him information (and Slim Virgin it appears) that others do not have access to.
Evidence?
Both Slim and Jay revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
Both revealed this information in RfAs,
Where has Slim done so?
If the policy is going to be enforced, don't enforce it at politically charged times only. Enforce it all of the time.
I do enforce it all the time. As I said, I block every open proxy I come across. I've blocked dozens, perhaps hundreds. And *every* time is politically charge on Wikipedia; frankly, especially now, when people are letting bizarre conspiracy theories fly at the drop of the hat, egged on by the banned trolls and WR, and other editors who make all sorts of opaque and unsubstantiated claims, then refuse to explain what they mean or back them up. And the latter refers to you, KP Botany.
I do back up my claims. I send them in to the list all the time, just for you, all my little AfD links, like the assertion that American Polygraph Association should be deleted because it's not notable, like Rock climbing for deletion.
What is your editing name, where is your Talk: page?
There are no opaque and unsubstantiated claims coming from me on this issue.
You claimed, more than once, that SlimVirgin had access to, and had revealed, CheckUser information. What substantiation do you have for that claim?
Not a claim, I thought she was the one who asked Armedblowfish why he edited through a tor account?
No, *I* was the person who did so. That's what this is all about. I would have hoped you would at least have looked at the RFA in question before spouting even more wild accusations.
What did you say your userid was? Where can I find this Talk: page you allege outlines some sort of cabal efforts against you?
It's not a wild accusation, it's just a mistake, and since you already posted a letter to me clearly stating my user name, yawn over the baseless threat. I looked at the Armedblowfish link briefly, and saw that Slim Virgin had asked--so apparently I made a mistake.
Wild accusations, spouting, accuse, accuse accuse.
Okay, back to the subject matter, I guess it's good that only one admin with check user tools is out there revealing private information gained through check user to everyone on Wikipedia.
KP