1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Your comment regarding an amendment request
Hi, you may want to review your comment regarding an amendment request in light of additional evidence posted there. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I knew what the situation was regarding Russavia. For the record, my hesitations here aren't concerning your conduct, but rather his when his time-limited ban runs out. Courcelles 02:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, no, Russavia's disruption was not limited to EE. Courcelles 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but any disruption outside of EE does not concern me since the majoirty of my edits are confined to EE, thus the iBan is redundant. --Nug (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can we please have this discussion where it belongs, the Amendment page, not here? As it stands, I might, despite my general distaste for them, vote to make these Ibans one-way on Russavia, but lifting them seems incredibly like inviting trouble. (While you may edit only in EE, the same is not true for others). Courcelles 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but any disruption outside of EE does not concern me since the majoirty of my edits are confined to EE, thus the iBan is redundant. --Nug (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, no, Russavia's disruption was not limited to EE. Courcelles 02:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the problematic behaviour occured solely in the EE topic area, an indefinite topic ban in EE is virtually an indefinite site ban in any case. --Nug (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)