| Revision as of 23:19, 25 April 2009 editJtrainor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,013 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:01, 26 April 2009 edit undoRadjenef (talk | contribs)394 edits →So, uh: Why this is not canvassing.Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::::::I have. You seem to be guilty of canvassing, at least in my opinion. The meatpuppetry aspect is questionable for now. ] (]) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) | ::::::I have. You seem to be guilty of canvassing, at least in my opinion. The meatpuppetry aspect is questionable for now. ] (]) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Actually it is '''not''' ] and here is the reason why (SQRT5P1D2 you might want to use this in your defence against their allegations): For it to be canvassing, it would have to be classifiable as ], ], ] or ]. It is not "excessive cross-posting" because he didn't indiscriminately send announcements to uninvolved editors in the form of spamming; he posted on a usenet newsgroup where some interested people might read. It is not "campaigning" because he did not use a non-neutral tone (see: "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field" in ). It is not "votestacking" because this is not a poll where editors would vote or try to reach a consensus; this is ArbCom. It is not "stealth canvassing" because he openly admitted posting it, because he translated it and because usenet is open by definition. ] --] (]) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:01, 26 April 2009
So, uh
If SQRT5P1D2 is using his blog to direct users to come to Misplaced Pages and get them to become active in the case, why isn't he eating a ban for abusive meatpuppetry? That seems a far more neat solution than adding him to the case. Jtrainor (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a link as evidence of this? Hersfold 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It was commented on in the workshop, unless I misread something. Jtrainor (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you did. I would appreciate it if you read the two comments I left. Short answer: I have no blog.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected, and withdraw my question. Jtrainor (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- This answer seems slighly disingenious. No, he didn't post it in a blog, but he is the original author of the meatpuppeting appeal: he posted it on usenet, according to his own admission. That's the same meatpuppetry, and yes, it is bannable, no matter which forum he chose initially. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Read this. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have. You seem to be guilty of canvassing, at least in my opinion. The meatpuppetry aspect is questionable for now. Jtrainor (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it is not canvassing and here is the reason why (SQRT5P1D2 you might want to use this in your defence against their allegations): For it to be canvassing, it would have to be classifiable as Excessive cross-posting, Campaigning, Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is not "excessive cross-posting" because he didn't indiscriminately send announcements to uninvolved editors in the form of spamming; he posted on a usenet newsgroup where some interested people might read. It is not "campaigning" because he did not use a non-neutral tone (see: "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field" in ). It is not "votestacking" because this is not a poll where editors would vote or try to reach a consensus; this is ArbCom. It is not "stealth canvassing" because he openly admitted posting it, because he translated it and because usenet is open by definition. Q.E.D. --Radjenef (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)