This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Shrike, template-warning Sean is extremely bad idea, especially taking into account that his revert, in my opinion, is justified and policy-based. Sean is one of the best editors around, and you'd better to maintain good working relations with him. -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you do this?-- Jac16888 Talk 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Mate, I'd recommend to reduce administration-related activity, and concentrate on articles. See, one who pops all the time at AE and SPI will be seen as a trouble maker after all. Take this as "second opinion" :) -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have time to address those due to RL issues, so I forwarded them to another SPI clerk for review. His conclusion is that while there are legitimate grounds for suspicion, and would have warranted a checkuser investigation had the data been available, the evidence is insufficient for a DUCK block, and the checkuser data on the suspected master has become stale. In the future, please submit this kind of reports to SPI for better tracking and response time. T. Canens ( talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Shrike, template-warning Sean is extremely bad idea, especially taking into account that his revert, in my opinion, is justified and policy-based. Sean is one of the best editors around, and you'd better to maintain good working relations with him. -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you do this?-- Jac16888 Talk 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Mate, I'd recommend to reduce administration-related activity, and concentrate on articles. See, one who pops all the time at AE and SPI will be seen as a trouble maker after all. Take this as "second opinion" :) -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have time to address those due to RL issues, so I forwarded them to another SPI clerk for review. His conclusion is that while there are legitimate grounds for suspicion, and would have warranted a checkuser investigation had the data been available, the evidence is insufficient for a DUCK block, and the checkuser data on the suspected master has become stale. In the future, please submit this kind of reports to SPI for better tracking and response time. T. Canens ( talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)