| Revision as of 22:12, 13 September 2008 editGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits no fishing here, would you like some poached RFA?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:36, 13 September 2008 edit undoRlevse (talk | contribs)93,195 edits noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :*Sound like a fishing expedition to me. --] (]) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | :*Sound like a fishing expedition to me. --] (]) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::* Sounds like abuse of the ] process. New, barely used accounts suddenly surfacing? If people want to oppose an RFA they can, but only once, and votes from fake accounts are worthless and a blockable offense if they're socking. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | ::* Sounds like abuse of the ] process. New, barely used accounts suddenly surfacing? If people want to oppose an RFA they can, but only once, and votes from fake accounts are worthless and a blockable offense if they're socking. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| {{cratnote}}If this isn't socking, it's canvassing, could be both. I have at least four other voters in that RFA I'm suspicious of. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:36, 13 September 2008
Eastbayway
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk Filed: 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
- ShadowVsScientology (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Eastbayway (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Julia1287 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence: At Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cirt, a variety of single purpose accounts have come out of the woodwork to oppose. These accounts have very low edit counts, or have been inactive for long periods of time. Please check if they may be related to each other, or to any of the litigants at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Cirt is known for having stood up to a variety of abusive pro-Scientology accounts. There is an appearance of payback here. Jehochman 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sound like a fishing expedition to me. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like abuse of the WP:RFA process. New, barely used accounts suddenly surfacing? If people want to oppose an RFA they can, but only once, and votes from fake accounts are worthless and a blockable offense if they're socking. rootology (C)(T) 22:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Bureaucrat note:If this isn't socking, it's canvassing, could be both. I have at least four other voters in that RFA I'm suspicious of. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)