419:
exist to bolster views about where
Knowledge (XXG) should go. Yes, I bet there are vandals with roll-back rights, i.e., editors who have roll-back rights who also have a "bad hand account," or who vandalize with IP edits. No, Strikeout_Sister, you've never been warned or blocked, as far as we know. But you are sounding a bit like some who have. Does that mean you are a sock? No, but it does mean that I can understand Majorly's suspicion, it makes me suspicious, too. I don't know about checkuser policy if there isn't a specific puppet master alleged, I'd thought that we didn't do that, but it seems, as well, that I've seen examples where it's been done. Strikeout_Sister, you had a right to express that opinion about 14-year-olds, but it was, in fact, a prejudiced comment, as Majorly pointed out. You have prejudged the ability of 14-year-olds to handle the responsibilities of an administrator. That's the definition of prejudice. Does that mean we should allow it? No, maybe the prejudice has a reasonable basis. I don't think so, but that's just my personal opinion. And it's all dicta here. A checkuser either takes this or doesn't, but I advised Strikeout_Sister, elsewhere, to fully disclose her relationship with her husband's account (if not publicly, then privately, perhaps with a checkuser or some trusted administrator), and I do think that checkuser could clear the air. Suspicion can breed incivility, and we already have too much of that.--
397:
seen a vandal-fighting sock puppet with rollback rights?) Final note, as I already stated, we've never stacked votes or rigged the system otherwise. We care(d) about WP. Bloody hell, does my edit history looks like a vandal's? Have I ever been warned or blocked? Any article I disrupted? No, no, and no. All I did was say in an RfA that I don't believe a 14 year-old should be an admin, and now I have to defend myself against (in my opinion) ridiculous accusations. I knew nasty things can/will happen on WP but I didn't expect them to come from admins.
320:
621:
607:
250:
is a sockpuppet of someone. Perhaps a bad hand account, but I find the pattern of edits highly suspicious. Hardly any editors find RfA so fast in their wiki-career, nor do they know of noticeboards, policies as fast as this user. The fact they installed
Twinkle on their fourth edit was the icing on the cake for me. There's no way a brand new editor would know about Twinkle on their first day.
490:
tough sometimes (trust me, I know), but the satisfaction of contributing to the project can be a great thing. It looks like you may well stick around, and I hope that's the case. As to this checkuser, I'm thinking it should probably be delisted. Majorly, are you considering withdrawing it at this point? Take care, all,
436:
user who opposed an RFA you co-nominated, whatever has happened at AN. I generally have respect for your edits, but equally would respectfully suggest that you should withdraw this request and avoid interacting with this user for now, if at all possible. If a request needs to be brought, let somebody else do it.
572:
I'm gratified to see that
Strikeout_Sister took my advice on my Talk page. I pointed out to her that Majorly's original comments hadn't been particularly uncivil, that going to AN over them wasn't a good move, that Majorly's suspicion was reasonable, given the circumstances, etc. However, I also gave
363:
There is a bit of a disconnect here. Yes, the spouse explanation is plausible, but socks often come up with plausible explanations for their instant expertise, which is why we don't block for that alone. But it raises suspicion, as
Majorly noted. Again, Strikeout_Sister's claims of incivility, though
418:
Maybe she's a fast study, but this just doesn't sound like such a new editor, even if coached, unless she's being told what to say. Puzzlement, though, isn't evidence. Maybe she just got it all in a flash, naturally. However, as to the question, sock puppets don't exist just to vandalize. They also
396:
Did your driving instructor tell you WHERE to drive? No, he told you HOW to drive. Where you go after that is your own business. Same here. And if you thought my behaviour was suspicious, I have (or rather, had) a Talk page. You could have asked before accusing me of sockpuppetry. (By the way, ever
249:
I decided to look into the history of this user following this bizarre behaviour. I expected to see a longer history, but this user registered on 5th August, just less than 3 weeks ago. Their fourth edit was installing
Twinkle, and used edit summaries etc from the start. Basically I think this user
435:
Majorly - I would say that you probably should have asked somebody else to look at this and see what they thought, rather than bringing this here yourself. It may not be contrary to policy, but there are more graceful and tactful things to do than bringing a case originating from a dispute with a
489:
strongly, which can raise eyebrows if you've only been editing for an extremely short period of time. In your defense, you have made a good faith (if understandably distressed) effort to address that criticism. I hope you will consider giving the project a second chance: Knowledge (XXG) can be
364:
not technically correct, are understandable. Except for that spouse. I'd think he or she would have explained that
Majorly's alleged incivility was merely strong argument, and that if she is going to get involved in contentious process here, she should expect worse than that. I would
518:
in the RfA, vote stacking is not taking place. But where is the evidence that it is? All I see above is evidence that
Strikeout Sister has had an account before. There shouldn't be an RFCU opened without anything pointing to actual disruption caused by sockpuppetry.
617:
has contacted me via email and explained the situation in detail. I'm quite satisfied that there is no abusive sock-puppetry going on here but decline to elaborate due to privacy concerns. I did run a brief check, also, and everything checks out okay. Oh, and
533:
I agree with
Darkspots. There may be reason to suspect that Strikeout Sister is not a new editor on Knowledge (XXG), but the fact remains, no sufficient evidence has been provided to indicate possible votestacking by two (or more) accounts. Fishing, anyone?
581:
keep her privacy. And she took it that way, instead of seizing on my "criticism," which is a good sign in itself. Happy editing, Sister. Stay out of trouble. Or, at least, if you are going to get in trouble, make sure it's over something truly important.
481:(←) It is regrettable that you have had to deal with much greater scrutiny than most editors would normally encounter in their first few weeks of editing. In defense of those who have raised questions, you did express some opinions
553:
It looks like
Majorly isn't willing to strike, so I'm taking Abd's advice and have contacted Alison. I do not object to a usercheck but due to the nature of my relationship I do not wish the results to be public.
267:
I never expected that being the spouse of an experienced (and helpful) WP editor would cause me problems like this. So for the record: yes, of course a brand new editor wouldn't install
Twinkle. Not without
382:
I have recommended people join Knowledge (XXG), for the reason why we're here: to write articles. I think it's very odd that a spouse would recommend vandal fighting and making controversial RfA votes.
454:
and (fortunately) more and more editors/admins are now beginning to defend me and my RfA vote. That's reassuring and makes me think that WP is maybe not as bad a snakepit as it looked 24 hours ago.
450:
I have no problem with interacting with Majorly in future, providing it's civil, so as far as I'm concerned there's no reason for him to avoid it. I'm not going to attack him. I've had my say at
368:
recommend to my spouse getting involved here, other than as an occasional editor. I certainly wouldn't teach her about AN/I, RfA, etc., right away, without warning her about the environment.--
272:, anyway. Vote stacking? Never. Sock puppet? Not. Fed up with WP after just 3 weeks? Very much so. I'm being shot down with false accusations and that's something I really don't like. I
514:. This is tantamount to accusing one of the other opposing editors of operating a sockpuppet account, is it not? If there aren't two accounts run by the same person voting
148:
511:
21:
141:
205:
241:
for alleged personal attacks. The thread has since developed, and it is agreed I did not make any personal attacks. Strikeout Sister then
58:
46:
17:
181:
33:
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
168:
649:
591:
564:
547:
528:
503:
464:
445:
428:
411:
391:
377:
358:
332:
313:
286:
258:
305:
Thanks for your comments. You do understand how your actions may have looked suspicious to someone who didn't know.
555:
455:
402:
277:
129:
629:
614:
342:
234:
441:
233:
on a request for adminship, with a controversial viewpoint. I ended up discussing the vote with this user
625:
520:
542:
524:
245:
he or she has "no wish to stay here" and subsequently blanked his or her userpage and talk page.
437:
216:
574:
398:
319:
451:
85:
536:
620:
587:
424:
373:
327:
385:
307:
252:
345:
whether or not her edits or !votes ever intersected with those of her "spouse."
45:. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on
634:
496:
351:
659:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser.
510:
The only allegation of disruption against Strikeout Sister is vote stacking at
606:
237:, but it soon turned into an argument, and in the end the user reported me to
124:
583:
420:
369:
491:
346:
341:
Delisting may be premature. I think it is not unreasonable to ask
37:{{Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Strikeout Sister}}
57:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
666:
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made
104:
242:
238:
230:
199:
192:
188:
175:
161:
155:
135:
109:
103:
98:
97:
91:
42:
633:, which is pretty-much what's happening here, too -
577:, assuming that she was telling the truth, that she
110:
92:
276:allowed to feel that way, am I? Goodbye, thanks.
512:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/JamieS93
8:
86:
292:
80:
29:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser
7:
115:Filed: 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
28:
619:
605:
318:
49:(but will still appear here).
1:
543:Make articles, not wikidrama
650:00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
592:03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
565:12:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
548:02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
529:01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
504:01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
465:01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
446:00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
429:01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
412:22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
392:19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
378:18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
359:16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
333:16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
314:14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
287:10:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
259:05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
689:
662:Please do not modify it.
326:should we delist it? --
221:(possible vote stacking)
64:Please do not modify it
47:Requests for checkuser
41:to the checkuser page
343:User:Strikeout Sister
239:the admin noticeboard
59:Request for checkuser
573:her advice based on
227:Supporting evidence:
670:, in a new section.
229:This user recently
601:
600:
500:
355:
119:
118:
53:
52:
680:
664:
647:
644:
642:
623:
615:Strikeout Sister
609:
539:
501:
498:
494:
388:
356:
353:
349:
330:
322:
310:
297:Extended content
293:
255:
210:
208:
171:
151:
149:deleted contribs
127:
125:Strikeout Sister
112:
106:
100:
94:
88:
81:
76:Strikeout Sister
66:
39:
30:
688:
687:
683:
682:
681:
679:
678:
677:
673:
672:
660:
640:
638:
635:
602:
546:
535:
497:
492:
386:
352:
347:
328:
308:
298:
253:
184:
164:
144:
123:
122:
84:request links:
79:
69:
62:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
686:
684:
675:
665:
657:
655:
653:
652:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
551:
550:
540:
531:
507:
506:
499:(aka justen)
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
433:
432:
431:
354:(aka justen)
336:
335:
316:
300:
299:
296:
291:
290:
289:
247:
246:
223:
222:
212:
211:
117:
116:
114:
78:
73:
71:
55:
54:
51:
50:
40:
34:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
685:
676:
671:
667:
663:
656:
651:
648:
646:
632:
631:
627:
622:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
593:
589:
585:
580:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
563:
562:
561:
560:
549:
544:
538:
532:
530:
526:
522:
517:
513:
509:
508:
505:
502:
495:
488:
484:
480:
466:
463:
462:
461:
460:
453:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
400:
395:
394:
393:
390:
389:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
357:
350:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
334:
331:
325:
321:
317:
315:
312:
311:
304:
303:
302:
301:
295:
294:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
275:
271:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
257:
256:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
220:
218:
214:
213:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
187:
183:
180:
177:
174:
170:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
126:
121:
120:
113:
107:
101:
95:
89:
83:
82:
77:
74:
72:
68:
65:
60:
48:
44:
38:
32:
31:
23:
19:
674:
669:
661:
658:
654:
636:
624:
610:
578:
558:
557:
556:
552:
515:
486:
485:quickly and
482:
458:
457:
456:
438:Brilliantine
405:
404:
403:
384:
365:
323:
306:
280:
279:
278:
273:
269:
264:
251:
248:
226:
215:
202:
196:
185:
178:
172:
165:
158:
152:
145:
138:
132:
75:
70:
63:
56:
36:
628:is not for
324:Clerk note:
200:investigate
401:. Thanks.
169:block user
162:filter log
626:CheckUser
537:Nishkid64
521:Darkspots
243:announced
189:CheckUser
176:block log
611:Declined
493:user:j
348:user:j
329:lucasbfr
142:contribs
20: |
630:fishing
387:Majorly
309:Majorly
265:Defense
254:Majorly
105:history
575:WP:AGF
516:oppose
399:WP:AGF
206:cuwiki
668:above
579:could
452:WP:AN
366:never
231:voted
111:watch
99:links
16:<
588:talk
525:talk
487:very
483:very
442:talk
425:talk
374:talk
270:help
235:here
156:logs
130:talk
93:edit
87:main
43:here
22:Case
584:Abd
559:SIS
459:SIS
421:Abd
406:SIS
370:Abd
281:SIS
193:log
136:tag
641:is
613:-
590:)
582:--
527:)
444:)
427:)
376:)
274:am
195:)
182:CA
108:•
102:•
96:•
90:•
61:.
645:n
643:o
639:l
637:A
586:(
545:)
541:(
523:(
440:(
423:(
372:(
219::
217:D
209:)
203:·
197:·
191:(
186:·
179:·
173:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
146:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
67:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.