User talk:FromChrissenden

November 2021

 * I apologize if this is not the correct place for this, but I think you should unblock FromChrissenden. Their actions were not malicious, and they made clear that this was a new account with no sockpuppetry intentions. ~ HAL  333  23:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What? with no sockpuppetry intentions... Then they should stop evading their many many blocks. TPA revoked. ST47 (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Sorry, but I pretty much had to close your discussion per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. It was already slightly dubious to start a discussion regarding the format of an RFC in the middle of it, but considering the checkuserblock-account and match to a CBAN'd user... well there you go. If you get unblocked or similar, I'll be happy to self-revert though. Best of luck! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem . The time it's taking to have my unblock request even acknowledged by the blocking admin, much less answered by someone who has seen the supposed proof I am "Brian K Horton" and wants to put their neck on the line to endorse it, is proof enough (to those who know Wikipedia) that the charge is manufactured. It was quite well known back when I was editing Wikipedia that CheckUsers weren't above doing this sort of thing, claiming a block was based on technical evidence when it isn't. I probably spelt a word the same way as that banned user, and they've used that as the excuse, and labelled it as a CU block to stop anyone in your lower ranked position asking awkward questions. No reason to think this wouldn't still be happening these days, since I'm not aware of any changes in how trusted users are monitored since I've been away (I think we have the same means of tracking such things, right?). I knew the Kubrick issue was contentious, but clearly I spooked certain people with my annoying reminders that this isn't exactly a run of the mill RfC. If you don't inform all past commenters it's happening, you (Wikipedia) probably will regret it. If you can't show the majority of arguments made were specific to Kubrick, you (Wikipedia) will probably will regret it. If you don't ensure the Admin who closes it doesn't just phone it in again and generally doesn't do their job, part of which is having an institutional memory of what has caused this issue to be pointlessly reopened in the past, you (Wikipedia) will probably regret it. As I said, it's no skin off my nose, people like Wallyfromdilbert were around when I decided Wikipedia wasn't doing what it says it does in contentious debates, I had actually half expected someone would try to pull something like this. Assume good faith my hiney. I see nothing remotely dubious in addressing procedural factors in an RfC that was already started, for example. It's exactly what a knowledgeable and committed editor should be doing. The lack of such on Wikipedia, is why I retired. What's dubious is that the person who opened it ignored those open questions of procedure, apparently believing that would get him the result he wanted. Clearly he was wrong. Not for nothing, is his limited ability but long presence, one of the biggest reasons this issue has been so badly mishandled for years, and he is in general, such a great reminder that Wikipedia isn't for people who can do the basics, like read. Maybe you disagree. You are still here, after all. Each to their own. FromChrissenden (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * [Thank you for the ping] I do agree to some extent that the RFC could have been better handled. I did layout a road map that I felt would've been more appropriate (including a mass-message notice), but I consider it a wash now. There will likely be another RFC in a year, and my hope is that it will be structured in a way to create a lasting consensus. In the meantime, there will likely be several clashes over the contents of the infobox if it gets consensus in this RFC. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, that was what I was trying to avoid with my perfectly sensible posts about a trial period and specific/general arguments etc. But clearly someone here feels threatened by Wikipedia operating how it is supposed to operate and wants it to be a perpetual farce where everyone has their time completely wasted. You will note Zzuuzz said "the evidence", not "the CU data". Totally corrupt. If the Kubrick situation all goes to hell in a year, remember me, and reconsider your own decision to stay here. You're wasting your life. Rank stupidity and general nonsense everywhere. FromChrissenden (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)