User talk:Redux: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:31, 15 March 2007

The Redux Archives

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

Welcome is a good place to start. Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help. Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now. Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics. Wikipedia:Village pump is a place to ask questions. Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 04:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're an admin! Please try to be conservative in the use of your new capabilities. Best regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're now a bureaucrat, so jump in and help out where you can. Follow the discussions at the bureaucrat's noticeboard and use your new powers for good of course. :) - Taxman ^Talk 15:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after I pestered Suisi, she gave you the oversite bit. Happy editing. Raul654 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redux. As requested on meta, your check-user flag is now active.

Please subscribe to checkuser-l and email [email protected] so that the listadmins know that you are allowed on the mailing list. (The list may contain confidential information). Bye. --Paginazero 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page!
Please add your message below this template and at the bottom of the page.
I will generally reply in your talk page. Thanks.

FYI, RfC pending against you

FYI, since I am not sure you have been notified, there is an RfC pending against you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Redux and Gallimh. I believe the RfC is meritless and have added an outside view accordingly. Newyorkbrad 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Brazil

I have suggested on the talk page to add assessment features to the project template, and there is one version that I've edited from the Portugal WP in my sandbox. I don't knowif it works or whether it should be added to the project. What do you think? Macgreco 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaillimh

Per your comment on user talk:Gaillimh about disclosing that user's previous identify to arbitrators/checkusers/et al, I would like to know that user's previous identity. You can reply using the email-this-user function. Raul654 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Reply to wikiwatch AT sbcglobal.net -- Daniel Brandt 68.91.89.40 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to confirm your identity as a registered user who also holds the status of Bureaucrat, CheckUser or Arbitrator. Otherwise I cannot release the information. Redux 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have forwarded the description you sent me to the parties you specified. Raul654 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco supporter

Hey, Redux. It seems like this 170.66.1.155 (talk · contribs) is back. And very tendencious. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Awards

There are three proposals which need some comments. Please weigh in:

Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) Barnstar]]

Once again, someone disagrees with my interpretation of our very loose guidelines. Now I don't mind when two users like WJBscribe and Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na, but they've taken the disagreement and posted negative comments over at that RFC.

So ... could you please weigh in one last time ... new barnstar or a wikiproject award Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#The_Copyeditor.27s_Award. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of tennis players' pages

User:Lman1987, under various names and IP addresses, continues to try and change the formatting of the records sections of various tennis players' pages. The user is trying to make what they believe to be a constructive improvement (and to some extent I see their point on how it would be nice to see players' finals all listed in chronological order), but definately needs a lesson in constructive discussion and enagagement on Wikipedia.

I previously said on User:Tennis expert's talk page that I didn't like this user's ideas on formatting becuase it made it very hard to pick out wins from losses in that format. But it has occured to me that if each entire line of wins had its text in bold and losses were not in bold, that problem might be solved and we'd in fact have what might be quite a good format.

Here's how that would look for Jim Courier's Grand Slam finals:

Wins (4) / Runner-ups (3)

Year	Championship	Opponent in Final	Result	Score in Final
1991	French Open (1)	Andre Agassi	Win	3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4
1991	U.S. Open	Stefan Edberg	Loss	2-6, 4-6, 0-6
1992	Australian Open (1)	Stefan Edberg	Win	6-3, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
1992	French Open (2)	Petr Korda	Win	7-5, 6-2, 6-1
1993	Australian Open (2)	Stefan Edberg	Win	6-2, 6-1, 2-6, 7-5
1993	French Open	Sergi Bruguera	Loss	4-6, 6-2, 2-6, 6-3, 3-6
1993	Wimbledon	Pete Sampras	Loss	6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 3-6

And here's how it would look for Stefan Edberg's:

Wins (6) / Runner-ups (5)

Year	Championship	Opponent in Final	Result	Score in Final
1985	Australian Open (1)	Mats Wilander	Win	6-4, 6-3, 6-3
1987	Australian Open (2)	Pat Cash	Win	6-3, 6-4, 3-6, 5-7, 6-3
1988	Wimbledon (1)	Boris Becker	Win	4-6, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2
1989	French Open	Michael Chang	Loss	1-6, 6-3, 6-4, 4-6, 2-6
1989	Wimbledon	Boris Becker	Loss	0-6, 6-7, 4-6
1990	Australian Open	Ivan Lendl	Loss	6-4, 6-7, 2-5 (retired)
1990	Wimbledon (2)	Boris Becker	Win	6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4
1991	U.S. Open (1)	Jim Courier	Win	6-2, 6-4, 6-0
1992	Australian Open	Jim Courier	Loss	3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 2-6
1992	U.S. Open (2)	Pete Sampras	Win	3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-2
1993	Australian Open	Jim Courier	Loss	2-6, 1-6, 6-2, 5-7

What do you think? Would this in fact be both an improvement and a reasonable accommodation that might stop the current edit war?

Just a thought.

Regards,

Zaxem 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the formatting possibility. However, editing from several accounts/IPs, editing at a clearly accelerated pace, ignoring other users' requests to stop and discuss, and re-reverting back to one's own version disregarding the obvious disagreement of other users involved in the creative process of the articles all represent a very inappropriate modus operandi, one that is disruptive and ends up taking the focus away from the effort of creating the best article possible. And those are the reasons why I blocked this individual. In this regard, Wikipedia works by consensus, and not by one person's opinions, no matter how "sure" they might be that what they are doing is right. Hopefully, he will take this cool-off timeout to realize that either he will discuss his ideas for improving the articles, since people have opposed them, or he just won't be able to get them to stick. Redux 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that this user has started editing again under a new IP address - 65.6.32.205. I fully agree with your decision to block this user for attempting to impose a format on others without consultation and for multiple disruptive reverts. However I'm also saying that the user may nevertheless have a point about the existing format and, with a bit of tweaking, a format could possibly be worked out which will satisfy everybody. I have no intention of attempting to implement the format I've suggested above unless there's a broad level agreement reached among regular tennis editors to do so. Zaxem 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for obvious circumvention of a previous, still standing block. I have also reverted by rollback all his edits that had not already been reverted: edits by a blocked user circumventing the block are reverted immediately. This is further indication of an uncooperative demeanor that really doesn't help anyone, himself included. Redux 07:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Zaxem 07:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same vandal, new IP address: User talk:70.153.126.141. Supertigerman 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Addressed in the same manner as the previous circumvention. All edits to articles made by a blocked user circumventing the block are to be reverted on sight. I've rolled back on everything he had edited from this latest IP. Redux 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another sock puppet: User talk:72.155.106.191. Supertigerman 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. All edits reverted by rollback. Thank you. Redux 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Yet another: User talk:Super Tennis Villian.

I have banned the account. Thank you again. Redux 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards Coordinator referendum

There has been some conflict at Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Please vote on the Coordinator referendum. --South Philly 20:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please delete an edit...

Hi may you please delete this edit by 71.56.117.225 as it is very sexualy over towened. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a need for a deletion in this case. It's clear vandalism, and it has been reverted. It also serves as evidence of this individual's disruptive behavior. Deleting it would make it only accessible to administrators, and there really seems to be no need for that. Redux 23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage History

Can you please delete my userpage history until 21:18 February 9. The earlier revisions contain embarrassing and personal information, which I don't want disclosed. Thanks. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit in your history made at 21:18 on February 9. What this probably means is that your preferences are adjusted to your own timezone, whereas I'm viewing the times in UTC time. To solve this, could you please provide a link to the first old version you do not want deleted? Given the time, I would suspect this is it, but it would be best to have it confirmed. Thank you. Redux 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats the revision i wanted to be deleted up to. Sorry about the different timezones. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erledigt Redux 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KyraVixen's RfA

I must admit, I'm a little annoyed with the result of this. If you look at this revision, the last before it was due to close, you can see it was at 75% exactly. The next revision was another support changed from a neutral bringing up the boundary to 75.47. Now, I'm not so strict with numbers, but considering how late this was closed, I think the result was a little unfair. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that the consensus was at 75% at the time of the original deadline, and I did find a problem or two in one or two of the opposers, but ultimately, 75% is too much of a borderline. We should promote at this level of consensus only if we find serious problems on the opposition side. That was not the case. There was opposition due to lack of project space work and alleged insufficent article writing, among other things. While many might disagree with such reasons, it is not enough to disregard the users' input and promote at 75% (remember, if we were to talk numbers exclusively, which is highly unrecommendable, the pass line is actually at 80%). I suppose, hypothetically speaking, that if there had been significative opposition where the reason given was the self-nom having been written in the third-person, there might have been grounds for considering promoting at 75%. But that was not the case. The consensus to promote, in this case, simply did not surpass the consensus not to promote by the required margin. It does seem, however, that it would be very simple for Kyra to address the concerns raised, and if nothing else changes, she would appear to be a shoo-in the next time around. Redux 16:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cant stop Me pal

I have unlimited IP addresses , you are in the middle of a war. You should just stay out. Most people agree with me now anyway., check out the Federer, Nadal, Tennis expert (that hard headed dope) talk pages. Everyone agrees with me. I WILL NEVER QUIT. I could care less if your an administrator or not. I know what im talkin about. I know you will block this account soon so i gotta go. but be sure you havent seen the last of me.

Changing username

Feel free to add back anything you think is necessary, but in my experience, if the instructions are reasonably short and simple, people actually do read them. It's much more user-friendly without the enormous red boxes, too. I'd like to leave it as is for a week or so to see how well people react. If problems arise as you say, we can fix it accordingly. — Dan | talk 04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureacrats

Hi Redux. Thanks for closing the overdue RfA. It seems there is now a need for another Bureacrat, which makes me smile ruefully at those who've opposed RfBs recently using "no need" arguments. Yes, it happened for unforseen unfortunate reasons, but hey, you can forsee that unforsee things will happen! --Dweller 13:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always say that anyone who feels qualified should run — as long as they understand the "less glamourous" aspect of the job, and the high risk of burning out doing it. The results of the three most recent RfBs, however, suggest that a significative morcel of the community would prefer to let the dust settle on Essjay's resignation before they are prepared to discuss a new Bureaucrat. So far, however, I haven't seen any particular increase in the job queue that didn't exist right before Essjay discontinued his work. I am, of course, speaking solely of Bureaucrat work, and not considering any effects there might have been on CheckUser or Oversight work, where Essjay was also quite active. Redux 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just glanced at some of the less savoury comments you get on your talk page, can I just point out, as an average Joe round here (not even an admin) that your efforts for this project are greatly appreciated by the vast majority of users. We're just so snowed under with things to do, we don't usually find the time to come along and say so. So "thank you". --Dweller 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Thanks. :-) Redux 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Hey there! Would you help me in telling Blgeoverlord (talk · contribs) about article names regarding footballers? Please, also inform him about adding dead links in articles. I told him everything about it, but checking his contribs it seems he'd just chosen to ignore me. Cheers —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Since you have checkuser permission, can you confirm if User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam is either 203.115.31.180 or 222.165.157.129? I have a nagging suspicion that he uses these ip address as an excuse for his continuous violation of COI. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have overlooked things. The IP address 222.165.157.129 is Netmonger's. The evidence is here. How can you ask either this or that?Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to this behavior? We need concrete evidence of signigicative abuse that would need a CheckUser procedure to be addressed properly. Otherwise, if those two IPs are behaving inappropriately, just have them blocked normally. Thanks, Redux 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for 3RR and been warned for COI. He says on his talk page that someone has hacked his account. I have a strong suspicion that he is using the ip addresses as a scapegoat to explain his innocence. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request the checkuser should be used parallelly for Nemonger as well. There is no need to use IP addresses as scapegoat.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possibility a checkuser could be done to confirm whether he is telling the truth once and for all? Because this is getting really ugly and has spilled over to a number of talk pages including User talk:Jimbo Wales.

I went through this over the pass hour and from what I gather this is basically what happened.

User:Rajsingam started editing Wikipedia last year, and claimed to be the individual Rajkumar Kanagasingam. He initially made a number of edits to that article.
When his bio was proposed for deletion, a new account User:DoDoBirds popped and and voted keep on the AFD,[1] and both accounts voted on a later TFD, violating WP:SOCK.[2] [3]
Suspicious that they were the same person, a user filed a sockpuppet case against both accounts, and User:Rajsingam admitted that DoDoBirds indeed was his own account[4] and promptly redirected the user page of User:DoDoBirds to User:Rajsingam in January.[5] After that both accounts were relatively silent.
Then this week User:Rajsingam posts a dreadful personal attack on User:Netmonger's talk page [6] and promptly indef blocked. He had previously had some dispute with Netmonger and Netmonger even filed a Requset for Comment again Rajsingham. User:DoDoBirds too then posted a personal attack on User talk:Jimbo Wales [7] and was also blocked.
After that a new account pops up named User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam, and says that User:Rajsingam and User:DoDoBirds are indeed his accounts, and that he shared the passwords of them with his friends and they misused the accounts.[8] He later identified the users he gave his password to as User:RaveenS and User:Bakasuprman [9].
Now he is claiming that someone has hacked his hacked his Wikipedia passwords as well as his email passwords and just keeps throwing the blame around everywhere.

I believe this will fall under the code "F" of WP:RFCU because if the given user was banned indefinitely for making this personal attack, he is now making these allegations that his account was used by someone else and is trying to evade the block by using the account User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam. So could you please see if the IP that logged on as User:Rajsingam to make this personal attack was the same as one user by User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam? From what I gather he lives in Sri Lanka, and the 2 users he shared his passwords with User:RaveenS and User:Bakasuprman are in the US and India respectively, so I hope that it shouldn't be that difficult. And it will clear a lot of things and hopefully resolve this ugly mess. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One clarification, I am from Canada and my Canadian IP's are all linked to my User account when ever I edit without signing. I sometimes edit from the USA, Mexico or Brazil when travelling and I do my best to sign on and if I don't sign on I link that IP to my user account (I did that once from the USA). The above mentioned user(s) has removed all the comments on various talk pages that he made about sharing his password with me after I requested him to do so. Thanks RaveenS 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that the checkuser to use first clear me and then against Netmonger and others.At the moment I am in Sri Lanka, but those who misused my user account "Rajsingam" and "DoDoBirds" also in Sri Lanka.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another two attempts to access my password by unauthorized requests was rejected

(1)

An unauthorized request for password for your account was rejected.

Details of the request:

For account: [email protected]

Password be sent to : [email protected]

Request from IP address : 128.205.146.89

Request Date/Time : 2007-03-09 17:28:46 GMT

Note: This IP address is from Buffalo, New York, USA. Any wikipedian will come to know who might be this(possible) from his userspace, who is always troubling me.He has come out with a lengthy statement with Delete vote on my bio AFD here. Rajkumar Kanagasingam 06:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha New York. That's where I am right now. Interesting. I see what you are implying. The accusations keep flying around. And where was the 2nd attempt from?

To be honest, instead of spamming so many people's talk pages (and I'm sorry about my part in it), I think the only way to solve this will be for check user to clear things up.

Redux do you think you can sort this out, or do you want us to post an official request on WP:RFCU? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second attempt is from France(the city unknown). The checkuser should be used against you and Netmonger as well.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 07:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser for Netmonger: A user filed checkuser request with manipulative statements against me. I have suspicion he was trying to hack my password because of the evidencehere. But Netmonger tried and the evidences are here. The one who misused my "Rajsingam" and "DoDoBirds" are actually Netmonger. So I request you to use the same checkuser for Netmonger as well. Otherwise it will impartial.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 11:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Rajsingams allegations and My response in his talk page

Please compare the following undersigned IP address by Netmonger on his Talk Page and the request for my e-mail's password from the IP address below.

Talk Page: Netmonger

Thanks.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 13:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Netmonger

You simply dont learn do you.. :-) How would anyone believe, that you posting message here that somebody requested for your password from a particular IP is true...

The points to notice here is

The requested password is emailed to your own gmail account (are u saying that password is also cracked!!!).. (how stupid one could be to request a password and get it emailed to another email address of the same person)
You shared your passwords with your friends, which is a very stupid thing to do.Evidence
You said the friends whom shared the passwords with are angry with you. Evidence Evidence2
You admitted you used the same passwords for the email and wiki and friends misused it.Evidence
Wikipedia is not a place to solve your inability to protect your own email box.
who gave you the right to use my signature on the title of the topic? ( I have removed it..)
This is evidence enough that you dont deserve an article of your own...

Albert Einstein said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”

thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P:S: Whoever cracked this guys passwordS... (if they were really cracked) please let me know how to do it.. I didn't know email passwords are so easy to crack/hack.. bcos in this case it seems they were cracked/hacked almost everyday ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Netmonger

Hey, Netmonger,

Don't bluff anymore.

This is wikipedia, otherwise I know how to address you.

If an authorised administrator request, I will give the password of the e-mail - [email protected] (which I changed before you changed the password).

There the evidence of your IP address is there.

I don't want to discuss anything anymore with you.

Even I won't answer to you anything if you post anything.

I request an Administrator to advise me what to do next.

That is not my friends you did those malicious postings everywhere first stealing my e-mail password(I used my first name "rajkumar" as password initially). Thereafter you found my wiki passwords from there.

Thanks.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well who is bluffing is very visible with the evidence I have given. That should be sufficient. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment

The editor Rajasingams behaviour has been highly disruptive all the time, his primary concern in wikipedia is promoting his book "Germans in Asia", its very clear he is trying to use wikipedia to promote his book, his allegations of people trying to hack his email account and succeeding is just an impossible story (in other words its a lie), www.mail.com do not allow users password requests to be sent to any email account you want, its only sent to the alternative email address provided at the time of registration, if one alternate address is not provided, the site prompts for the secret question for which the answer is known only to the account holder (In this case Rajasingam is claiming it is sent to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]). All this is verifiable with the site, and it is normal email security procedure in place for any web based email account. To further explain, even if someone uses Brute force attack to hack, there is a 2 to 4 second delay on response from the site (for example hotmail has this feature) which makes even bruteforce impossible as it would take an Eon to crack the password, presumably email.com also would have all these security features, so this story of people cracking his password is unbelievable.

Further more I have evidence of this editor violating so many of wikipedia's policies here User:Netmonger/RfC, this Rfc was failed because, the editors certifying signed in the wrong place, if required I can get those editors to testify for this. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Today in my e-mail I received this

Sorry, we are unable to release your password because the information you have provided does not match our records.

Details of the request:
For account: [email protected]
Password be sent to : [email protected]
Request from IP address : 64.15.152.44
Request Date/Time : 2007-03-10 17:00:14 GMT

I have not made a request to know [email protected] ‘s password. someone else made the request masquerading as me. This is getting weirder by the hourRaveenS 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who manipulate things think always I am a fool.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raveen, Others can't make me fool that you are trying to steal my password. I trust you. I made a mistake initially. Now I know the real crooksRajkumar Kanagasingam 18:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an authorised Administrator

If an authorised administrator requests, I will give the password of the e-mail - [email protected] (which I changed before "Netmonger and Group" changed the password).

There the evidence of Netmonger and Group's IP addresses are there.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator's statement on why the Rfc was failed

The Administrator's statement is here on User:Netmonger/RfC why the Rfc was failed.Rajkumar Kanagasingam 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original request, I've verified that the accounts that were under suspicion have been indefblocked already. I would like to make it very clear that sharing an account's password, and in effect sharing the account itself, with other people is not admissible. Compromised accounts will all be banned immediately, and will only be reinstated iff we are satisfied that the owner has repented, will not do it again and managed to restore exclusive access to his or her account.
Regarding Netmonger, if a request for checkuser has already been filed on the public forum, it would be best if it is addressed there (and it probably already was, I haven't checked at this point), so as to prevent checking the account repeated times without communication between the users doing the checking (if it is the case).
If there is any evidence that anyone is currently using IPs to violate policy, since the accounts in question have all already been banned, as I mentioned, I would ask that the diffs be posted, so that we can look into it. In requesting a check on another user, it is key to provide the diffs and links to the perceived violations and inappropriate behavior. Thank you. Redux 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redux&oldid=115301540"

@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
-== Note for an authorised Administrator ==
+=== Note for an authorised Administrator ===
 If an authorised administrator requests, I will give the password of the e-mail - [email protected] (which I changed before "Netmonger and Group" changed the password).
@@ Line 380: / Line 380: @@
 There the evidence of Netmonger and Group's IP addresses are there.[[User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam|Rajkumar Kanagasingam]] 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-== The Administrator's statement on why the Rfc was failed ==
+=== The Administrator's statement on why the Rfc was failed ===
 The Administrator's statement is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netmonger&diff=105322331&oldid=105310709 '''here'''] on [[User:Netmonger/RfC]] why the Rfc was failed.[[User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam|Rajkumar Kanagasingam]] 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
+:Regarding the original request, I've verified that the accounts that were under suspicion have been indefblocked already.  I would like to make it very clear that sharing an account's password, and in effect sharing the account itself, with other people is not admissible.  Compromised accounts will all be banned immediately, and will only be reinstated [[iff]] we are satisfied that the owner has repented, will not do it again ''and'' managed to restore exclusive access to his or her account.<br>Regarding Netmonger, if a request for checkuser has already been filed on the public forum, it would be best if it is addressed there (and it probably already was, I haven't checked at this point), so as to prevent checking the account repeated times without communication between the users doing the checking (if it is the case).<br>If there is any evidence that anyone is currently using IPs to violate policy, since the accounts in question have all already been banned, as I mentioned, I would ask that the diffs be posted, so that we can look into it.  In requesting a check on another user, it is key to provide the diffs and links to the perceived violations and inappropriate behavior.  Thank you.  [[User:Redux|Redux]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)