and the arb. is off...... Luckily Mercury's suggestion wasn't accepted, and after fairly concise, sensible comment, the arb case has been accepted.
Interesting posts which leaped off the page were;
I should add: I was only concerned with the use of multiple accounts for drama. I have not looked into PM's editing career itself. I have no problem with PM having only one account and sticking to it - but the edits will I expect be a matter for the AC to consider - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
which struck me as interesting that an indefinite blocking admin would say 'I have not looked into PM's editing...' !
I also seriously wondered if Guy had had a bit of a realisation whilst writing up the extent of the crimes and misdemeanors.. I thought this was rather...um.. weak;
Editing interests such as , , suggest that the reason for moving away from an account traceable to RWI was precisely to engage in editing of controversial content.
The various accounts edit overlapping subject areas. For example, Purples edited , Privatemusings edited , King's lawyer. See [1] for one of Purples' edits to Jonathan King
In the first post, I can only guess that he believes those articles to be 'hot potatoes' - which of course they're not really, or at least not enough to imply that my motivations were somehow nefarious. In the 2nd post, I think he's trying to imply that this amounts to a violation of the 'sock' policy which says you mustn't have two accounts editing on the same pages, or pages which have a substantial connection (and it's interesting that he cherry picks an edit which may on first impressions look aggressively controversial - of course, in context, it's not). My reading was always that the no-no in the 'sock' policy was to give the impression of multiple voices in support of a particular viewpoint, or particular content. I don't really think that even Guy would think that was the case.
The new 'evidence' page makes heartening reading - first we have Guy's section, which is focused more on prose and insinuation than many actual diff.s or other evidence. I can't review it all, because some of it is now visible only to admin.s (I've made a note at a talk page on that) - but I feel fairly happy that the info. seems to me to be pretty weak.
Kendrick7 is an editor I haven't come across before this process, and his evidence is very clear and straight forward - it's really just a blow by blow of what actually happened - and when presented in that fashion, to me, the slightly silly nature of my block comes into focus. I also appreciate his sense of humour, and other contributions so far to the case.
It also gives me heart to see the early contributions from the active Arb.s - particularly the note that hopefully this case may not drag too long.
More anon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment