| Revision as of 13:41, 14 July 2012 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 3d) to User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/7.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:24, 14 July 2012 edit undoBred Ivy (talk | contribs)31 edits →Light Current SPI: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Hi Tim. I've made to pages that affect those in your userspace on request of {{user|mabdul}}. If you do not agree with these feel free to revert me and to discuss this with mabdul. Apologies in advance if this breaks anything it should not. Thanks! — ] 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | Hi Tim. I've made to pages that affect those in your userspace on request of {{user|mabdul}}. If you do not agree with these feel free to revert me and to discuss this with mabdul. Apologies in advance if this breaks anything it should not. Thanks! — ] 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Light Current SPI == | |||
| Pardon me Mr. Canens, | |||
| I see that I am a suspected sock on the current LC SPI case. Reviewing the main SPI page, I note in the opening paragragh that: | |||
| *''"Investigations may only be opened if you provide, on the investigation page, clear evidence that two users have the same operator."'' | |||
| Under the "Important notes" the 2nd bullet advises: | |||
| *''"Without exception, you must supply evidence (with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that substantiate your suspicion that two accounts are sock-puppets."'' | |||
| As you have endorsed as Clerk or Reviewing Admin the SPI asking for check user, I was hoping that you could identify for me the evidence that justifies the investigation. | |||
| #Hipocrite's single cromulent sentence(?),contain no information that would drag me into this investigation. The only fact that I was able to extract was a link showing that I responded to allegations made against me. I see nothing unusual about responding to a discussion where my user ID comes up. | |||
| #Baseball Bugs evidence is an anagram, yet Elvis=Alive wouldn't be cause to exhume. There are +100K anagrams for your user id are they a cause for concern? | |||
| #Steve Summit has "Strong suspicions", but this hardly embiggens the justification for a checkuser. | |||
| Please advise me on the evidence that your endorsement is based on so that I may defend myself as suggested . Thanks for your time. ] (]) 19:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:24, 14 July 2012
Please click here to leave me a new message.
| AfC submissions Random submission |
| ~8 weeks |
| 1,822 pending submissionsPurge to update |
Notes
| PGP key |
|---|
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24 QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv 9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k 3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3 W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4 Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950 VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8 df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK 2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU 2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+ wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432 E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0 RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7 /L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc= =oCnW -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- |
2 Questions
Okay fine, I accept your recommendation and findings but you indicated that a warning for his carelessness should suffice. That's fine by me. I'm assuming that you mean an ARBPIA warning, is that correct? My next question is this. Let's assume that someone who never received an ARBPIA warning (and never participated at AE) engages in source distortion. What would be the appropriate forum for such a breach? If he never received a warning, presumably AE would be powerless to do anything. Would ANI be the appropriate venue?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- 1. Yes. 2. If you want community sanctions, ANI is the right venue, though I doubt that anything but the clearest-cut cases would be actioned there. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Query
Any update on my mail?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for a second opinion. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- sent mail--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Edits to your javascript
Hi Tim. I've made these edits to pages that affect those in your userspace on request of mabdul (talk · contribs). If you do not agree with these feel free to revert me and to discuss this with mabdul. Apologies in advance if this breaks anything it should not. Thanks! — foxj 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Light Current SPI
Pardon me Mr. Canens,
I see that I am a suspected sock on the current LC SPI case. Reviewing the main SPI page, I note in the opening paragragh that:
- "Investigations may only be opened if you provide, on the investigation page, clear evidence that two users have the same operator."
Under the "Important notes" the 2nd bullet advises:
- "Without exception, you must supply evidence (with diffs and any reasonable deductions and impressions as a result) that substantiate your suspicion that two accounts are sock-puppets."
As you have endorsed as Clerk or Reviewing Admin the SPI asking for check user, I was hoping that you could identify for me the evidence that justifies the investigation.
- Hipocrite's single cromulent sentence(?),contain no information that would drag me into this investigation. The only fact that I was able to extract was a link showing that I responded to allegations made against me. I see nothing unusual about responding to a discussion where my user ID comes up.
- Baseball Bugs evidence is an anagram, yet Elvis=Alive wouldn't be cause to exhume. There are +100K anagrams for your user id here are they a cause for concern?
- Steve Summit has "Strong suspicions", but this hardly embiggens the justification for a checkuser.
Please advise me on the evidence that your endorsement is based on so that I may defend myself as suggested here. Thanks for your time. Bred Ivy (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)