Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 5 May 2008

Arbitration Committee review of block

After reviewing your appeal, the Arbitration Committee is unblocking your account based on your good work on other Foundation projects. Per our agreement by email, you will be using only one account and no open proxies. For the Arbitration Committee, FloNight♥♥♥ 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC).

Congratulations from me, Poetlister. Welcome back. Acalamari 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Poetlister! (Edit conflict.) :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well - you already know I have known you to be a real person for possibly years (ie involvement with WR - dunno how long thats been) - welcome back to acknowledgement from the wiki beuracracy. Viridae 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Poetlister! @Viridae your account on WR was created 19 May 2007. @FloNight Is it acknowledged that this user was not a sockpuppet of Runcorn? --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

oH there you - go, nearly a year. And my originals involvement with WR was to set some misrepresentations of policy right I think. So it must have been more like 10 months. Oh well - felt like years. Viridae 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and I'll think you'll like this. :) Acalamari 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Welcome back. -- Naerii 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Poetlister! This is great news :) - Alison 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Welcome back. (No brainer, though - you are a crat on my second favourite project). Sceptre 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see your editing privs restored. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) krimpet✽ 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome (back). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back! :) Enigma 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister is innocent

The opinions in my essay are mine alone. Poetlister agrees with the general theme, but she did not ask me to publish it, nor do I require her permission to do so.

• User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent

Enjoy reading. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister is not innocent. The checkuser evidence was overwhelming and damning. She is being unbanned not because we have changed our mind on the original evidence; in fact, we have reviewed it and found it as convincing as ever. Rather, she is being unbanned because we believe in giving users a second chance, and because of her good work on other projects. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit - if you accept that she actually is a she - then you have accepted she is not a sockpuppet of runcorn, who is male. Which means she was never a sock and is therefore innocent of all charges. Othwerwise you are still maintaining that this is Runcorn. Viridae 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, no swearing, please. Be of cheer and be merry. A day of good news only deserves good words :)

I respect English Misplaced Pages Arbcom experience and discretion, as an experienced editor and sister project CU,　I learn most of sockpuppet allegations hit the target properly. I just said, discretion, including they now lifted the ban and gave Poetlister a second chance. It is really good of them! Also it is good to hear they respect Poetlister do a lot of good works with which we proudly consider her a great asset.

re: open proxies. As an English Wikiquote CU, I proactively block open proxies, and know our English Misplaced Pages colleagues do the same. So it is also good to hear that Poetlister gave her word not to edit via open proxies anymore.

And last but not least, congrats for restoring your edit right, Poetlister! --Aphaia (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Viridae seems to be claiming that Morven holds inconsistent beliefs or is presenting a logically inconsistent position, but that only follows if Morven is incapable of having beliefs different from Viridae, such as that runcorn isn't male. It looks a bit like a case of failing the Sally-Anne test. -- 71.102.174.155 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you repeat it often enough, people will come to believe it. -- Naerii 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More info

May I suggest good faith, and hold off the arguing a bit.

(Full comment being drafted, will post soon). FT2  00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith of all involved would lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is not a sockpuppet and checkusers are mistaken (since 1. it’s extremely unlikely that Poetlister herself would be mistaken about this and 2. people being mistaken in good faith happens all the time, including in groups).

Assuming bad faith of someone involved, on the other hand, would likely lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is lying, since that's more likely than a number of checkusers lying (though I'm not entirely clear on how many and which checkusers who have reviewed the evidence support the sockpuppet conclusion and how many and which (if any) checkusers who have reviewed the evidence disagree with that conclusion). However, I think you do have to want someone to be lying in order to get to that conclusion. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't prove guilt. Though it can in certain cases strongly point ot it. However disregarding the checkuser evidence, had this been a runcorn sock he has kept the pretence up for a hell of a logn time with a hell of a lot of commitment. Viridae 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been away much of the weekend, and am away tonight too. The write-up of the block/unblocks and the summary of a large amount of case discussion and evidence, is now complete, and I'll post it on my return tomorrow. On a matter like this, it would be a poor idea to post and then immediately not be around to respond to others on it. FT2  15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the block, unblock and evidence is now posted at WP:ANI#Poetlister_unblock_clarification. May I hope that it's for the best. FT2  16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Runcorn from the list of banned users - my rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned? --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Long time no see...Welcome back. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. It would seem common sense won out in the long run. Celarnor 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister, welcome back! I hope this doesn't mean your involvement in other projects will suffer!! :-( ;-) p.s. The Bell-Buoy needs some loving! hehe John Vandenberg 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)