Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

I treat my talk page as a top level landing page for all discussion and as such archive stale discussions quickly. If a conversation started elsewhere, I will be watching it. If it starts here I will watch it here. Thanks.

Hello, Hasteur. You have new messages at PPdd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see no reason to redact anything. The case should have a proper filing statement by the person intending to present the primary evidence in the case. The evidence is not coming from you. The evidence to be presented by arbcom, specifically their chosen representative EotR. Arbcom requests statements often include meta comments regarding scope or process. My statement is no different.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that edit summary was directed at me, allow me to clarify one thing. I'm not assuming bad faith here. I assume you filed the case for what you believe are the right reasons. However good faith does not always equal good process. Thus the reason for my suggestion to EotR.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove any comments you've placed in anyone else's section. "Reply to another person's comment in your section.". Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu evidence page 'While caustic and not the expected level of a "trustee"...... '. Did you mean a "trusty". Moriori (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I meant exactly what I said trustee Hasteur (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Who/what is he a trustee for? Something I missed? Moriori (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was entrusted with the keys to the janitor's closet. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes him a "trusty", not a "trustee", which is a legal term related to legal trusts. Moriori (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why. The user keeps wikihounding me which is not a simple content dispute and his 3O requests are used for abusive purposes as it was at White Carphatians in the past. --Nmate (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs showing said abusive uses of 3O. It should be noted that I reccomended 3O on this case from the ANI page. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in continuing discussion with someone, who dedicated in wikihounding and to pick a quarrel with my edits. Once I had reported this user for a violation of 3RR [1] and soon after his interest in editing the article White Carpathians that I had edit just before I filled my 3RR report concerning Iaaasi, "resuscitated"[2]. (Nauneim is a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi which was created on the ground that the user was unable to wait until his 3RR block comes to an end). But after the 3RR block had expired, the user also continued editing the article with an abusive 3O request there without having had an interest in editing the article beforehand.[3]Just by checking the edit history of the article Košice out[4], it plainly looks that the user hadn't had any interest in editing the article before I started to edit it, but shortly afterwards his interest in editing the same artice, enhancely increased and picked a quarrel with my edits there and went to ask for an abusive 3O request forgery, too. [5] So that it is not too surprising that if I am unwilling to accept his 3O request forgeries neither here ,nor anywhere else on Wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unaware but user:Iaaasi is a longtime disruptive user who received a large number of blocks at least 13 of them indefinite, just on accounts that were CheckUser confirmed [6]. His harassment of other users via sockpuppets and other means stretches over a time period of over a year. It is highly unlikely that low level DRP processes are of any help at this point. Hobartimus (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been the case. Since the unblock they have (from my viewing of their page) obeyed the rules and procedures. It is my understanding that when a user is released from a unblock that the evidence previously used to block them is not to be used as evidence of past behavior unless it is to demonstrate a substantial long term violation. As such, this issue is over the naming order on a page. Not harrasment, not socking. Please feel free to dis-associate yourself with the previous behavior of the user as it is not germane to the discussion.Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case. The user is one of the most disruptive I have ever seen on Wikipedia and constantly harasses other users over a period of over a year now. The harassment is extremely troubling and cannot be solved with low level DRP as I have said. It's unhelpful to pretend that the issue is "naming order" when this thing is ongoing since January 2010 with 13 indefinite blocks countless hours of wasted administrator, CheckUser and editor time trying to clean it up... Hobartimus (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hasteur has already realised who is of good faith here (Iaaasi (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This flare is over the naming order. I see other sections regarding other things, but for the time being, the issue is the order of alternative language names of the city, as brought by Iaaasi. Yes it would have helped to not inclide the extra baggage, but at the time being that's all I'm seeing. Please feel free to demonstrate with Diffs and explicit connections to show that Iaaasi is continuing a pattern of harrasment since they have been unblocked. Once that's demonstrated, I'm perfectly happy to consider a wider context. Hasteur (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you put talkback on Nmate's talk page instead of Hobartimus' talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, one reply for Nmate (above section) and one for Horbartimus (this one). Put 2 replies down first then 2 talkbacks. Hasteur (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, thanks for involving into the discussion. I hope you will not leave it until reaching a conclusion (Iaaasi (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]