| Revision as of 13:18, 8 August 2016 editFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,369 edits →Blocked: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:35, 8 August 2016 edit undoSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,610 edits →BlockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Pete, I've blocked you for 2 weeks for misusing an alternate account to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry, in order to avoid scrutiny. This sockpuppet was confirmed as yours by a Checkuser, so any reviewing admin (if there is an unblock request) should ask a Checkuser before unblocking. While you're blocked, please do not use your talk page to make similar accusations, or talk page access will be removed. If you have private evidence to back up your accusations, you can send it to ArbCom. --] (]) 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC) | Pete, I've blocked you for 2 weeks for misusing an alternate account to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry, in order to avoid scrutiny. This sockpuppet was confirmed as yours by a Checkuser, so any reviewing admin (if there is an unblock request) should ask a Checkuser before unblocking. While you're blocked, please do not use your talk page to make similar accusations, or talk page access will be removed. If you have private evidence to back up your accusations, you can send it to ArbCom. --] (]) 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks. I think you were a little hasty there, and at least one of your assumptions is plain wrong, but I see from your contributions that you see ArbCom as the way to go. You're right. This thing needs to be resolved. If editors can evade bans with impunity, then there are wider implications and it just makes a mockery of so much that has been built up over years. I need a bit of time to prepare a concise, evidence-based, case for ArbCom. Could you unblock me so I can get started on that, please? I promise to be completely open and not to make accusations against others before laying my evidence before ArbCom. --] (]) 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:35, 8 August 2016
Please comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:S&P 500 Index. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Blocked
Pete, I've blocked you for 2 weeks for misusing an alternate account to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry, in order to avoid scrutiny. This sockpuppet was confirmed as yours by a Checkuser, so any reviewing admin (if there is an unblock request) should ask a Checkuser before unblocking. While you're blocked, please do not use your talk page to make similar accusations, or talk page access will be removed. If you have private evidence to back up your accusations, you can send it to ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think you were a little hasty there, and at least one of your assumptions is plain wrong, but I see from your contributions that you see ArbCom as the way to go. You're right. This thing needs to be resolved. If editors can evade bans with impunity, then there are wider implications and it just makes a mockery of so much that has been built up over years. I need a bit of time to prepare a concise, evidence-based, case for ArbCom. Could you unblock me so I can get started on that, please? I promise to be completely open and not to make accusations against others before laying my evidence before ArbCom. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)