Jump to content

User talk:Unbroken Chain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
EChastain (talk | contribs)
Line 43: Line 43:
::::I don't understand that table at all, but I'm 100% sure that I've never interacted with Sue Rangell. The evidence that I'm a sockpuppet seems so silly to me that I'm really surprised that anyone's taking it seriously. Is that list on Lightbreather's page what qualifies as "credible evidence" of a sockpuppet? [[User:EChastain|EChastain]] ([[User talk:EChastain|talk]]) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't understand that table at all, but I'm 100% sure that I've never interacted with Sue Rangell. The evidence that I'm a sockpuppet seems so silly to me that I'm really surprised that anyone's taking it seriously. Is that list on Lightbreather's page what qualifies as "credible evidence" of a sockpuppet? [[User:EChastain|EChastain]] ([[User talk:EChastain|talk]]) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'll be 100 percent honest they point out a few things that are a telling indicator you may not be a new user. What they are saying and I'm at least half sure you know already is that they think you are Sue Rangel. The amount of edits you made prior to the GGTF were enough to squeak by the auto-confirm limit to post at Arbcom. The editing history seems suggestive as well as there is overlap in editing areas mainly , Spitzer, GGTF and then the seeming dispute with CMDC and LB. The checkuser was rejected because it has been too long to draw a conclusion based on technical evidence but now a behavioral investigation will ensue. Now the one thing that can work in your favor is you can explain if you are Sue Rangel as you have not denied it and it is probably frowned upon that you have returned to old disputes but [[WP:Cleanstart]] only recommends you avoid those areas. The Idea that you quit in August just to participate in an arbcom case of the same nature is a little out of hand. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket#top|talk]]) 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::I'll be 100 percent honest they point out a few things that are a telling indicator you may not be a new user. What they are saying and I'm at least half sure you know already is that they think you are Sue Rangel. The amount of edits you made prior to the GGTF were enough to squeak by the auto-confirm limit to post at Arbcom. The editing history seems suggestive as well as there is overlap in editing areas mainly , Spitzer, GGTF and then the seeming dispute with CMDC and LB. The checkuser was rejected because it has been too long to draw a conclusion based on technical evidence but now a behavioral investigation will ensue. Now the one thing that can work in your favor is you can explain if you are Sue Rangel as you have not denied it and it is probably frowned upon that you have returned to old disputes but [[WP:Cleanstart]] only recommends you avoid those areas. The Idea that you quit in August just to participate in an arbcom case of the same nature is a little out of hand. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket#top|talk]]) 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} What evidence is there that I'm Sue Rangell?

I registered the account on 12/10/2014, a day before Lightbreather announced she was quitting on 13/10/2014. (Or maybe I'm psychic?) I made my first edit a day later on 13/10/2014, as it turns out the same day as she quit.<p>I don't see the connection with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Rangell/Archives/Tuesday_12th_of_August_2014_10:56:22_AM#AE_WarningSue Rangell's AE warning] linked to by Lightbreather. I've been editing here on and off since 2005, with sometimes years in between, so yes, I've edited before as an IP but never on gun control or Israel/Palestine issues. I'm not interested in getting into political issues. I've never edited GGTF pages. Mostly I got an account this time to have a watchlist to follow some things going on that I happened upon - (the spamming (as I saw it) of your comments, and the gang up on Eric Corbett (as I saw it) and wanted to be able to follow the sequelae without leaving bunches of tabs open all the time. Mostly I was concerned about Eric Corbett, and not because I agree with his rude comments. I think his presence is crucial. (My opinion). I value his content contributions and his enormous helpfulness to other content writers. I think if he were banned it would cause overall harm to wikipedia by demoralizing some other editors and result in making the rules more rigid, more like real work, more Americanised, and more unpleasant than it already has become. Also, I see some of his opinions, like the ones about Jimbo Wales, as political statements. If you can't criticise the "leader", then what? [[User:EChastain|EChastain]] ([[User talk:EChastain|talk]]) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:02, 30 November 2014


Recent Changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

8 September 2024

8 September 2024


JW

That was a misclick by me, hence my self-revert. I've no understanding of what the issue is in that particular war but it looks like it might be best to leave it to the admins. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Who wouldn't want a kitten?

Robbie0630 (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live with two cats and two dogs so I won't ocmplain!. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know ...

Sometimes I find some editors' post so far "out there" they border on self-parody. Have confidence in the community, especially the committee -- the voters just don't elect idiots to that group. There's not always a need to frame everything and it can add to clutter (you reply, so then they reply, and so on). NE Ent 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) What do the voters elect? Not idiots, yes. I asked the candidates questions in 2013, (including: "Imagine further that after said arb voted to ban the editor, and an equal number of arbs voted against it, it's your turn to cast the one and final vote that will ban or not. Assuming you lean towards it (or will you never?): will you?"). They looked better at facts than the sitting arbs. Did the elected ones act like they answered? - I asked a simple question this year and voted for the nine whose answers I liked best. We'll see if they get elected, and if elected, how they will act. All filed under no foul. play on. by my favourite arb who doesn't serve any more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Interesting, it seems like I'm becoming a cause celebre! I'd be interested in hearing who those all think I am. EChastain (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hope they are wrong but I will watch to see their assumptions as well. I just remember part of the game that started this was a complaint that two editors were talking about Lightbreather on their talkpage without notifying them, interesting turn of events apparently that only applies when talking about them and not other editors. Granted she couldn't pop the note on your page right away but a ping was easily accomplished. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that complaint? And who is Sue Rangell? EChastain (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't interact with Sue but if you [[1]] see the table in that link it's on the table with a handy timeline of invovlement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that table at all, but I'm 100% sure that I've never interacted with Sue Rangell. The evidence that I'm a sockpuppet seems so silly to me that I'm really surprised that anyone's taking it seriously. Is that list on Lightbreather's page what qualifies as "credible evidence" of a sockpuppet? EChastain (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be 100 percent honest they point out a few things that are a telling indicator you may not be a new user. What they are saying and I'm at least half sure you know already is that they think you are Sue Rangel. The amount of edits you made prior to the GGTF were enough to squeak by the auto-confirm limit to post at Arbcom. The editing history seems suggestive as well as there is overlap in editing areas mainly , Spitzer, GGTF and then the seeming dispute with CMDC and LB. The checkuser was rejected because it has been too long to draw a conclusion based on technical evidence but now a behavioral investigation will ensue. Now the one thing that can work in your favor is you can explain if you are Sue Rangel as you have not denied it and it is probably frowned upon that you have returned to old disputes but WP:Cleanstart only recommends you avoid those areas. The Idea that you quit in August just to participate in an arbcom case of the same nature is a little out of hand. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that I'm Sue Rangell? I registered the account on 12/10/2014, a day before Lightbreather announced she was quitting on 13/10/2014. (Or maybe I'm psychic?) I made my first edit a day later on 13/10/2014, as it turns out the same day as she quit.

I don't see the connection with Rangell's AE warning linked to by Lightbreather. I've been editing here on and off since 2005, with sometimes years in between, so yes, I've edited before as an IP but never on gun control or Israel/Palestine issues. I'm not interested in getting into political issues. I've never edited GGTF pages. Mostly I got an account this time to have a watchlist to follow some things going on that I happened upon - (the spamming (as I saw it) of your comments, and the gang up on Eric Corbett (as I saw it) and wanted to be able to follow the sequelae without leaving bunches of tabs open all the time. Mostly I was concerned about Eric Corbett, and not because I agree with his rude comments. I think his presence is crucial. (My opinion). I value his content contributions and his enormous helpfulness to other content writers. I think if he were banned it would cause overall harm to wikipedia by demoralizing some other editors and result in making the rules more rigid, more like real work, more Americanised, and more unpleasant than it already has become. Also, I see some of his opinions, like the ones about Jimbo Wales, as political statements. If you can't criticise the "leader", then what? EChastain (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]