Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 2 December 2012

My question at the election

Hi

I note from your edit summary that you felt my question was not just loaded, but "very, very loaded". You're probably right. It's something I feel strongly about at the moment. Nevertheless, I've had some responses I consider very useful, some of them quite unexpected and educational to me, which addressed the points I was hoping they would. I hope other voters will find them useful too. As I said to NW in his question section, I already knew the question was badly worded, but did not reword it because some candidates answered almost immediately, and I didn't think it would make sense to do so in those circumstances. Still, thank you for your answer anyway. I will endeavour to be less "loaded" in future questions. I realise you are busy, and I don't need an answer to this. Good luck in the election. Begoon  12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've answered your clarified question there. — Coren  15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

F&A block

Just a formal request, I don't think that the block you did was correct. Don't take it personally, and in no way does this affect my ArbCom vote, but I (and a few others) would like it if you undo the block. Take it to SPI if you wish, and if diffs are provided I'll go with what diffs say, but I think we all need to AGF and say that he IPed a while before joining. It's not impossible. He could also have come from another project/wiki site. If you don't reverse the block, I don't really care. Just voicing my opinion. Please don't kill me. /sarcasm/ gwickwire_edits 04:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I've no intention to kill you either way.  :-) The thing is, I work a lot at SPI and his behaviour rings all the "returning banned user" alarm bells; if that had landed on a case at SPI, I would have closed it in exactly the same way (It doesn't help his case that, in addition, he's pushing all the right "grooming for adminship" buttons right from the get-go). In this particular case, I'm going to trust my experience and the technical data and not reverse the block – although I remain open to an appeal from F&A himself, it'd have to be especially compelling to reverse my current appraisal. — Coren  04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I know all too well about the ringing bells, and it did too for me at first. My first interaction with the user was in STiki or huggle or something where he beat me to a revert. That was, I think, the first day of his account. I found it weird, but didn't pursue it any further. My view is that he isn't causing so much trouble to deserve a block. I understand your not reversing the block, and I respect it. I'd be curious, even though its against policy, if we could AIR (whoops, IAR) and get a CU just for the knowledge he isn't a sock. Like I said, there's an IP starting with 7 (can't remember the full thing at this time) that edits so well, it could probably run a full RfA if not pass one at this time. Thanks for the reply, and not killing me to death. /redundancy/ gwickwire_edits 04:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already done a checkuser; and its results are consistent with someone who knows checkuser and how to avoid detection (that is, the pattern is not consistent with a typical user). On its own, it wouldn't have been enough. — Coren  04

19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

-- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)