| Revision as of 23:17, 20 December 2006 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits Arb request← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 20 December 2006 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Arb request: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| I think you have a misunderstanding about the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies. There are many reasons that alternate accounts might be blocked, including trolling and other forms of disruption. Regardless, the accounts blocked by Jayjg need to be listed so that the arbitrators can evaluate the appropriateness of the individual blocks and use of checkuser. For example, if one account was being disruptive, this might justify a checkuser that would uncover the other accounts. On the other hand, if all the accounts were behaving within Misplaced Pages norms, there might be an argument that checkuser was inappropriate. It looks however, like they would prefer a direct complaint to arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. ] 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | I think you have a misunderstanding about the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies. There are many reasons that alternate accounts might be blocked, including trolling and other forms of disruption. Regardless, the accounts blocked by Jayjg need to be listed so that the arbitrators can evaluate the appropriateness of the individual blocks and use of checkuser. For example, if one account was being disruptive, this might justify a checkuser that would uncover the other accounts. On the other hand, if all the accounts were behaving within Misplaced Pages norms, there might be an argument that checkuser was inappropriate. It looks however, like they would prefer a direct complaint to arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. ] 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Re-labeling the accounts is fine. Read the comments of the arbitrators so far. If the request is rejected, which seems likely, the next step would be either a complaint to the noticeboard or an admin-conduct RFC. Your best argument either way would be to say that you are not a banned user, that the accounts were never used for a banned purpose (such as vote stacking or false consensus on an article talk page) and that the edits that probably triggered the check (to Jews for Jesus) were not disruptive enough to justify checkusering you--therefore Jayjg's actions were inappropriate. I haven't checked the contribs of Enlightening so I don't know how good of an argument you are likely to be able to make. I also see you were caught using sockpuppets for a banned purpose back in February, so this will hurt your chances this time around. ] 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:45, 20 December 2006
R E T I R E D]
Plenty of reasons why. Most of all, it just isn't fun anymore. I'll save the lengthy analysis of what is wrong with wikipedia for another time.
See yall round.
Justforasecond 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Arb request
I think you have a misunderstanding about the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies. There are many reasons that alternate accounts might be blocked, including trolling and other forms of disruption. Regardless, the accounts blocked by Jayjg need to be listed so that the arbitrators can evaluate the appropriateness of the individual blocks and use of checkuser. For example, if one account was being disruptive, this might justify a checkuser that would uncover the other accounts. On the other hand, if all the accounts were behaving within Misplaced Pages norms, there might be an argument that checkuser was inappropriate. It looks however, like they would prefer a direct complaint to arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. Thatcher131 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re-labeling the accounts is fine. Read the comments of the arbitrators so far. If the request is rejected, which seems likely, the next step would be either a complaint to the noticeboard or an admin-conduct RFC. Your best argument either way would be to say that you are not a banned user, that the accounts were never used for a banned purpose (such as vote stacking or false consensus on an article talk page) and that the edits that probably triggered the check (to Jews for Jesus) were not disruptive enough to justify checkusering you--therefore Jayjg's actions were inappropriate. I haven't checked the contribs of Enlightening so I don't know how good of an argument you are likely to be able to make. I also see you were caught using sockpuppets for a banned purpose back in February, so this will hurt your chances this time around. Thatcher131 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)