Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 22 December 2008

This is Jehochman's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. Please follow Strunk & White's advice, "Omit needless words!" Unblocks: If I block a user, any administrator is free to refactor the block unless I have specifically requested contacting me first. Fighting is not entertained on this page. I will remove any comments that appear to be provocation.

Giano's 72hr Block

Hiya Jehochman. Nobody's trying to drive away/provoke Giano. He's just gotta learn to control his temper. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what thoughts go through people's minds. The practical effect is to either provoke or drive him off. The ArbCom are clueful individuals (or they are supposed to be); they should realize this. Jehochman 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Giano has been driven off. If my memory serves me right, he's left Misplaced Pages in a huff, many times before. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that when he returns he will not be calmer than before, and they will find excuses to place an escalating series of blocks. See User:Geogre/Comic for an explanation of the dynamic. Jehochman 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

'Tis up to Giano, as it always was. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish that people would not provoke users who have challenges keeping their cool. Jehochman 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a price Misplaced Pages pays, for being a collaborative project. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it's all everyone else's fault for existing in the first place. I can roll with that, actually. It's never his fault. I always knew the autoblocker had it in for him. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, you've made the statement a couple of times now on Giano's talk page that Giano's incivil remarks were only "blowing off steam on his own talk page". The ArbCom's block notice includes at least two diffs in that are to other pages: one to AN and one to Teresa's talk. Giano wasn't just blowing off steam — he was looking to goad the community into a response to his rudeness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, Giano's gotta learn to control his temper. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment made me laugh out loud. Do you really believe "that this prevents treating Giano as a special case", Jehochman? Because I don't know any other editor that can only be blocked on explicit written agreement of the Committee, which rather means that it ensures Giano is treated as a special case, rather than preventing it. Rockpocket 23:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ArbCom have made a thorough mess of this situation. Giano should be treated the same as any other editor. If somebody is blocked, we normally allow them to vent on their own page. Once Theresa blocked him for doing that, naturally, he was quite pissed off when he returned, so he pushed the envelope further, ensuring that he'd get another block. The shame is that Theresa should have just calmly explained the autoblock problem, and then gone off to fix it. That would have probably avoided this whole, needless drama. Jehochman 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Giano created his own situation. I think he enjoys the attention & the drama of it all. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I wanted to publicly tell you Jehochman that allowing a user (even if its a good editor otherwise) to call admins stupid and idiots and saying "they're just letting off steam", is definitely not the right thing to do. Thats equivalent to allowing an employee of the company come to work naked one day and say "Its ok, he's just relaxing today." If he was to go away which I'm sure he will not, someone else more polite will come and take his place. Drama like this and abuse like this, if allowed to stay, infact scares away potential new users. Also we dont have to be scared of Giano and say "we cant provoke him, the Misplaced Pages logo will break down". Well again, new users will come and take his place. We definitely dont have to be afraid of abusive users. Its just a fundamentally wrong principle. --Matt57 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If we treat volunteers as fodder, I don't think that will encourage new ones. Somehow, I think Giano will tell a lot of people how petty and power concerned some wikifolk are, and that will hurt us because it is apparently true. We need to stop admins and especially arbs from lording their status over ordinary editors. In particular, we need to watch out for those who enjoy power and status more than writing articles. These are easy to spot by checking their mainspace contributions. Look for editors who are minimally active in mainspace or who primarily revert vandalism. Jehochman 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But as we've already noted, Giano isn't an ordinary editor. A combination of his envelope-pushing nature and ArbCom's unwillingness to deal with him made him special. And like the admins and Arbs who lord their status over the ordinary editor, Giano has exploited his special status to lord it right back, and say and do things that the ordinary article editor would have been blocked for a long time ago without a peep of protest from anyone else. From the perspective of anyone wronged by the establishment, Giano's battle may well have been righteous in taking it to those that currently wield power. But lets not pretend that it was anything other than a battle for power. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, so couching this as bad admins vs. good article writers is overly simplistic. Rockpocket 03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that battling is not the way forward, but speaking plainly should be encouraged. I am very concerned that the Arbs and their hangers-on have been pushing the envelope by using their power to stifle dissenting views. Jehochman 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. I agree with that. But this was rather inevitable, I would have thought. You give a body of people certain powers and ask them to exercise those powers. If you then have an individual or small group of individuals who set out to purposefully challenge that body (or a number thereof), using - sometimes questionable - tactics. When those tactics under question fall within the judicial remit of the body that is being challenged, there is only going to be one outcome. We are seeing the stifling of dissenting views, under the premise that the views are presented in a disruptive way. But if the views were not expressed that way, the argument goes, then they not effect change. Further, if the body were not dealing with that disruption, then they would claim they are not being doing the job they were asked.... Its completely circular. I don't pretend to know how to break the circle, but I recognize that its there. Rockpocket 04:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, believe me: if he goes and tells potential new users that he was blocked, they will come and see why he was - for calling admins stupid and idiots for some unintentional mistake that doesnt happen often (some ISP deciding to route all traffic through a single IP, or whatever it was that Thatcher explained). If he's not blocked then a potential user will come and see that admins are being refered to as stupids and idiots and that, people are allowed to get away with it. The potential user will get a bad impression of wikipedia and never come back. I've stated already that I dont have favourable opinions of the autoblock-blocking admin but I'm not letting that effect my judgement here. The sequence of events was:

• Admin blocks an IP and causes an autoblock for a user (unintentional)
• User gets angry and calls the admin 'stupid' and 'idiots' and trolls (among other things, repeatedly links to WjB's edit page? Is that not trollish?)
• User gets warned for civility by another admin but does not heed the warning
• He gets blocked for continuing to remain uncivil.

I see the sequence of events is completely fair. What you are saying is that no, he shouldn't have been blocked. Why not Jehochman? Can I address you as an idiot and call you stupid and get away with it? Tell me its ok and I will do that. I'm serious. Say its ok and I will address you like that from now. If its ok not for me to call you stupid or an idiot and that if I do that to you and you think I should be blocked, then it was not OK for Giano too also to call another admin stupid or an idiot. This is not about ArbCom or some people enjoying their power or status. Its about stopping rude users from calling other users idiots and stupid and discouraging this behavior. He's not a little 4 year old who needs some gentle treatment and coaxing and begging to kindly please understand the issue and what happened. He's an adult and he knows that personal attacks are not allowed here. If he has temper tantrums and he's going to dish it out on others, he needs to stop coming on the site and let some other polite user take his place. And once again, you cannot forgive a serial killer just because he bakes good cake. If he's been writing articles, that doesn't mean its ok for him to abuse other users. This is how corruption spreads in a real life scenario and chaos multiplies. New users see this drama and they see an admin saying "Its ok for another user to call an admin an idiot", what would they think about the treatment they might get from the same user given that they were going to join as a simple user and not an admin? They wouldn't join the site naturally. Once again, tell me what you think of me calling with those labels and abusive words. If I got blocked for you calling you those names then I might complain that "this is just about the hunger and misuse of power". Giano is like other trolls. He abuses people and has repeatedly gotten blocked for incivility and divides the admins like over here who have previous unfavorable opinions of other admins or of the ArbCom. That again should not be your reason to take the side of an abusive user. It just boils down to the same issues and its really simple - if anyone ignores warnings for incivility, they are always blocked. By the way, this is a good idea but once again, the absence of the clarity was not an excuse for anyone to loose their temper. --Matt57 05:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am very concerned that the Arbs and their hangers-on have been pushing the envelope by using their power to stifle dissenting views. Which arbs and what hangers-on do you mean, Jehochman? I've been raking Charles Matthews over the coals all the last month and gave Bainer a talking-down yesterday. Took a few jabs at Jimbo last week too. ;) Nobody's stifling my dissent. Cheers, Durova 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They should ask themselves that very same question, battle maiden. You present your views appropriately, so it is quite hard for anyone to find a chink in your armor. While Giano's packaging was not best practice, he did have a point that something was very wrong with the autoblock situation and that it needed to be fixed. Time was wasted chastising him that should have been spent fixing the problem. Had that happened, and the situation been calmly explained to him, I think there would have been a better result. Jehochman 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose for a moment that someone accidentally blocked half of San Diego. Would it help or hurt the situation to insult people? I really don't suppose the Arbs and their hangers-on are searching for pretexts to find chinks in my armor. Still wondering who those people are. Anyway, you seem to have Giano's ear so let him know there's a foolproof way to avoid civility blocks. It has something to do with stretching one's legs and pouring another cup of coffee before clicking 'save page'. I prefer French roast and a French press. Cheers, Durova 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

People should stop trying to change Giano or anyone else for that matter. Either accept him the way he is, or say that our community can't include people like him. On the other point, you've said yourself that the best admins have a little bit of troll blood. Some of our Arbs are quite skillful in the troll arts. It appears that at least a few of them are master baiters. Poor Giano is not one to turn the other cheek when provoked. Jehochman 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Misplaced Pages for over 3yrs. I've never once felt bullied by Administrators or Arbitrators. Infact, I haven't had any problems with them. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! I am very glad that our efforts have provided you, at least, with a productive editing environment. Which are your favorite artices? Jehochman 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in to mostly political articles, but overall my edit are little ones (spelling correction, grammar; etc). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re: EmilEikS

I'm not sure if you recall this, but you blocked Fiandonca after Rlevse determined that EmilEikS (talk · contribs) = EmilEik (talk · contribs) = Fiandonca (talk · contribs). You said you didn't block EmilEikS to allow him to participate in the RfC, which he refused to do and instead "retired", effectively killing any outcome on the RfC. Since then, the IP 217.209.96.57 (talk · contribs) has popped up, editing the same articles as Emil, and protesting the same issues, using the same arguments and bad faith accusations, and trying to involve adminstrators, all of which is noted at User talk:Kingturtle#Mae West Grave. The IP admitted here that he/she is using the same computer as Fiandonca and EmilEikS, and like Fiandonca/Emil, make references to their "serious injury book" file they've compiled, made overt accusations of a "cabal of negative, personal editors persecuting Emil Eikner and the other users of this computer." Your blocking was included, since apparently I am "so powerful that she has managed to get Emil and Fiandonca unfairly assessed as "sock puyppets" by an administrator who showed heavy bias in doing so." In any case, since this anonymous editor, who calls himself "Anonymous", has clearly admitted to editing from the same place and continues the problems that were present before, what should or can be done? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that the same IP that left the note at User talk:Kingturtle is the one who removed your sock puppet notice from the EmilEikS talk page . According to WP:SHARE, Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Misplaced Pages's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. Since Fiandonca and Emil were determined to be the same, wouldn't this qualify as an ongoing block evasion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman, you recently requested a user check and subsequently blocked a sockpuppet account (User:Fiandonca). This was related to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/EmilEikS, which has been closed. The reason given for closure is "User retired on 1 December 2008." A few days ago, I encountered two anonymous IP accounts (217.209.96.57 and 217.21.225.53). These accounts stood out to me because they were used to making comments on article and user talk pages and signed "Anonymous", or in at least one instance, Thurgood Rosewood. The edit that concerns me the most, however, is this one. I am a fairly new editor and would like your advice/opinion regarding this, as I don't want to pursue anything further unless I'm sure that this is possible sockpuppetry. Thank you kindly, momoricks (make my day) 12:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be EmilEikS (talk · contribs) based on behavior. They are allowed to retire their account and edit as an IP if they wish. However, they may not edit disruptively. There must be evidence of disruption or some other problem before any block is applied to the IP. Jehochman 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See my notes in the section above, article edits aren't disruptive as yet, but talk page accusations, attacks and issues have become so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Jehochman. momoricks (make my day) 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple questions: 1) According to WP:UP#OWN, WP:PA applies to user pages as well as article pages; therefore, don't some comments on User_talk:Kingturtle#Mae_West_Grave violate the policy against personal attacks (examples: "By an editor who according to edit history has tried to remove the whole photo once and then chipped away more and more at the caption content? Personal agenda?" and "If not outright vandalism, this looks like just a touch of spite to me in any case.")? Or, at the very least, disruptive behavior? 2) Specifically how much and what kind of disruptive behavior warrants administrative action, such as a stern warning? Thank you, momoricks (make my day) 03:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are comments that jump off the page in their wrongfulness. The reaction to reading them is how can somebody say that about another person? I am not getting that feeling with these comments. Kingturtle is more than capable of stopping an IP being incivil on their talk page. Jehochman 08:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. momoricks (make my day) 09:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, Kingturtle isn't replying to this whatsoever, except to the first post to say he responded with his opinion on an image cropping. Pointing out obvious sock behavior is called "reprehensible", accusations of cabalism and persecution, all of that is character attacks upon more than just myself, but others who have had issues with this behavior. This started from a scathing attack by Emil and Fiandonca upon me because I removed a flag icon from an infobox, but it's my behavior - "pompous treatment, then outright tantrums" - after an all out assault and obvious sock behavior, that is at issue? Their charade continues, right up to this, trying to bargain to get a block lifted and taking up the old banter of how their organization is embarrassed and hurt by Misplaced Pages reaction to bad behavior, but oops, we signed in as EmilEikS, and this, which was a weak attempt to cover up the sign-in error and thus the illusion that there is more than one person at work here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the best response is no response. Jehochman 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jehochman, but these last difs from Wildhartlivie, esp. the resigning one, shows to me that this editor is trying to game the system. I think the sock should be blocked as user Emil as it seems like an obvious WP:Sock invasion. Just want to share my opinion here. --CrohnieGal 13:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

An IP can only be blocked temporarily, and I think doing so will create more disruption, rather than less. The main account has been inactive since December 1, so I don't see the point of blocking that one either. Could somebody direct the IP's attention to this thread and ask them to respond, politely. My opinion could change quickly if they come here bearing assumptions of bad faith. Jehochman 14:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will inform the IP since I don't think I should be felt as a threat to him/her. Just to note for you though the IP in question commented above. --CrohnieGal 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Done --CrohnieGal 15:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hochman: What is your question, sir? There is no bad faith, nor do I believe I have displayed anything but earnest concern about the reputation of English Misplaced Pages. Also pls see my comment above under "My two cents." We are very interested in - 1 - getting all this animosity to cease and - 2 - helping to improve English Misplaced Pages in any way we can: content, attitudes, reputation, workability. Sincerely, /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PS We have followed the link to "no response" which you left above and consensus here is that I ask you, with all due respect, if you meant by it to label me a "troll" or a "vandal", or if that was a mistake of some kind, or if we have misunderstood? Appreciate your polite explanation here. Again, sincerely, - /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, please note that the EmilEikS (talk · contribs) account was inactive until it was used to make this edit on December 15, 2008. If I recall correctly, you did not block this account when the User:Fiandonca account was blocked in order to give EmilEikS the opportunity to post a response at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/EmilEikS. He did not respond to the RfC and instead retired the account, perhaps to avoid further scrutiny for his incivility. momoricks (make my day) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hochman: Here is the full text of that edit completed a few seconds later. /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That was one big "oops!", wasn't it? Look, here's the problem. Everyone has had opportunity to read what you've posted at User talk:Kingturtle, including Kingturtle, who said "There is no cabal. What you are feeling is the sensation of being on the minority-side of an opinion. Learn a lesson in that you are no always right. And it is okay. Learn to deal with such rejection maturely and responsibly. Learn to deal with such rejection by not going on the offensive, by not feeling defensive and by not personally attacking others." and "There is no need whatsoever for "the editor above" to do anything of the sort. There is a need for you to stop pestering other users simply because you don't get your way." Whether you are Emil, or Fiandonca, or the man in the moon, it's been established that you are all editing from the same place , with the same narrow set of objectives and goals, which is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet situation (per WP:SHARE. Please stop this, because you don't like an editor or editors, or an outcome, there is no need to continue your battle. It is tiresome and non-productive. Because you've marginally toned down the offense doesn't make it any more productive, let's please move on from your attacks. And for the record, "reprehensible theories", charges of cabalism and persecution against you/them/he/she/whatever, and shopping for backing is contentiousness, whether the editing is on an article page or a talk page. Please just stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To the Wikimedia administrator J E Hochman: How long is this long-running and vehement persecution of a number of Swedish contributors (all of whom are known to me as very good people) by the editor Wildhartivlie and her documented friends going to continue and is anyone responsible ever going to put a stop to it? The time has come. You may reply, Mr Hochman, to Thurgood Rosewood. If you would like more information about me, you may enter an email address here and I will be glad to write to you. No one else need reply as I am only interested in the views of an accredited administrator. /Thurgood Rosewood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.225.53 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Emil was fond of saying "don't talk to me" and instructing people not to respond to you, too. Vehemence is solely in your POV, and you are not being persecuted, although sometimes the feeling of being persecuted is common with some people whose opinion is in the minority, as Kingturtle said. Kingturtle isn't among that group you have said is part of my "cabal", but he, too, has told you to stop. What are you trying to accomplish here? As long as you are editing from the same IP as Emil, Fiandonca, etc., to me, your editing is under question. The IP would determine sock/meatpuppetry, along with a narrow range of article interest and objectives, not just saying "I'm not." That you have stated you have a file of transgressions by myself and a few others, which Emil also maintained, is a clear indicator of sameness. Emil was signed in here yesterday, and on Commons this morning, then you posted this and made edits on the same group of articles that Emil edited. Red flag?? Um, yeah. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the harm in walking away from this conflict? Which articles are going to suffer. Let me know and I will watchlist them. Jehochman 15:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, for instance, a discussion over an image on Talk:Mae West would be an issue. The Mae West article contains an image of West's crypt, but the image also contains the person in whose support the IP's myriad of names have edited and seem to work at least tangentially with, from which I removed a flag icon (which was the catalyst for a frenzied attack by both previously identified socks), and have constantly asserted the article is an embarrassing mess that can't seem to be finished (?). I removed the image because I don't feel it is visible enough for what it is and emphasized the person in the image rather than the crypt. It was returned, but the name of the person was removed from the image caption, replaced by "a fan" (by another uninvolved editor), and then removed entirely by the IP. I cropped the image to just show West's crypt, which was protested by IP et al, and a discussion on cropping it further ensued. Inexplicably, the IP did this, rationalizing that "requested connection to photo's person added /Anonymous at this IP:). The discussion on the article talk page did not address that in any way, shape or form. Note, this person wasn't personally involved in any capacity in West's career. Fortunately, User:Kingturtle did revert this. This is the type of problem that we contend with and why the editor(s)'s behavior is at issue. The other issue, at least for me, is that everyone seems to agree that this is the same person, User:EmilEikS, who said he was retiring. He retired rather than take part in a request for comment on his behavior. That he seems to have returned, only using an IP, and continues to complain about the same things he did prior to retiring is a huge issue to me, since his main complaint continues to be my secret "cabal" and the continued references to the "serious injury file" they have. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have an RFC, and the user chose not to participate. That feedback still is valid. If the user continues against community norms, next time let me know and I will start a thread on WP:ANI to have them restricted from areas of the encyclopedia where they cause trouble. In the meanwhile, I suggest you walk away and give them a chance to calm down. If they follow you, let me know and I will block them. Jehochman 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict. I can walk away from this page, but I won't walk away from the Mae West article, and today's issues there are part of the reason why. He/they/whatever ran to Kingturtle's page when I cropped the image, claiming personal agendas, serious shocked at the poor quality of the article (have they LOOKED at other articles on Misplaced Pages?), cabalism, urging a bureaucrat to intervene for their cause, etc. That was without my speaking up. It is enough to make people quit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3

The page has been created by User:Jimfbleak. If you want to co-nom, I would be greatly appreciative. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Undead warrior 3. Thanks in advance. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me too much, but some of the opposes are just absurd. Oppose based on being a "Conformist". Now that one really got me. Everyone is a conformist to some degree, so I really doubt the accuracy of that oppose. That and the opposes tend to leach off of each other. 3 bad CsD tags a long time ago got about 20 opposes from people who can't even see them or the other csd tag's I've placed. Oh well. I'll just have to try again some time down the road. We gave it a good run. Thanks for the nomination. No matter what they said, I thought it was a great nomination. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work and see if you could find an article of interest capable of WP:GAC or WP:FAC. Perhaps Black metal, or something about aviation or any other topic that interests you. Spend a few months working on content, allowing any issues to slip further into the past, and then try again. Next time I recommend responding a maximum of one time to any oppose, and only responding to a small number of them. If people make an unreasonable objection, have confidence that enough of us will see through it and come to your defense. See meatball:DefendEachOther. I am glad you did more than 50% support, which is itself an accomplishment. Jehochman 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Final decision

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available here. Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for the duration of one year.

--Tznkai (talk), on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

grey problem

stop vandalizing azad kashmir with pov terms like POK and there wont be any problems my biased indian american freind 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) unless this indian pov pusher ends his anti pakistan terms on azad kashmir article i will continue to respond to his pov games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.129.185 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More problems with vandal ip User:81.158.129.185 et al. a.k.a. User:Nangparbat

This ip vandal sock is on a revert run. I have violated several 3RRs trying to stop them, so I can no longer revert their edits. Can this user be blocked again for their ban evasion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

furthermore, an WP:CIV violation Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you remind me please, who is the puppetmaster? Also, don't edit war with them. Let their edits stand for the time being. Jehochman 00:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nangparbat

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:William_M._Connolley#The_User:Nangparbat_case._I_think this might be of use too Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you please copy the info in whatever format it currently exists to a WP:SSP report so we have something easy to link to, and a solid basis for placing blocks, or better yet range blocks, to shut them down completely. Let's take a few extra minutes to do a thorough, unassailable job of identifying the socks. We may want to have a checkuser help place range blocks to

Gamma ray burst

I need help checking references on gamma ray burst pre-WP:FAC. If any lurkers here would like to help, I will bake you cookies. Jehochman 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What checks are required? Fritzpoll (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have one reviewer, Cryptic C62, who has been helping me with copy editing, as can be seen at Talk:Gamma ray burst. We now need to check that the coverage is complete, and we should probably also check the references to make sure they support the statements made. Jehochman 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Working.... Fritzpoll (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to Sarah

I am sorry for misunderstanding your intentions when you posted to my talk page. Due to our recent, acrimonious exchange at User talk:WJBscribe, and the fact that you did not initially disclose your position as moderator of the unblock mailing list, I thought you were coming to my talk page to continue a past dispute. I had requested to find a neutral party to help us work out differences of opinion, but you never responded. Therefore, I thought that dispute between us was still active.

It is generally bad practice to continue posting to a user's talk page multiple times after they have asked you to stop. I am willing to drop my objection in the interest of getting along. As I am placing blocks and you are reviewing blocks, we need to at least be able to have a civil discussion. Hopefully you will agree that continuing past disputes is bad for Misplaced Pages.

Regarding Brewhaha, the matter is being discussed on Arbcom-l. I have forwarded to them a collection of email evidence that I could not post on wiki. Rest assured that they will handle the matter appropriately, and feel free to send them your thoughts on the matter.

As for my removal of the third unblock request and protection of the user's talk page, my intention was to comply with policy in all respects. You pointed out that I should not have removed the third unblock request, even though it was not allowed by policy, and I now understand the point you were making. Thank you for that. Jehochman 15:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the infamous Nangparbat

I have the early makings of a sock report. I figure you should see it. User talk:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader. The list of IPs speak for themselves, but I will complete the report after my finals (last one is Wednesday afternoon PST). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.158.236.59 This ip is on the rampage. Once again here is there rough draft SSP report User talk:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kernow

Hi there. I just noticed your comments on this SSP page where you indicated your intention to block me as a sock of User:Jessi1989. As I appear to currently have a brief window in which I can post on your talk page before you do so, I'd like to ask you, please, to look into this in more detail before you take any action. You are, honestly, being duped here by the SSP accuser as most of what he writes in the evidence section about me is false and/or exaggerated, and unsupported by relevant diffs. You state that all my edits to the article in question have been entirely disruptive and that all my remaining edits are trivial. My edits to the article in question comprise 18 of my 351 edits, and I only got involved in this article in the first place because I took part in the AFD, and the closing administrator asked me to try to rewrite the article because I apparently made the most compelling keep argument and at the time the article was somewhat of a mess. The SSP accuser raised an immediate DRV and fought very hard for this article's deletion. My comments in the debate did contribute towards it not being deleted and I believe the SSP accuser has "had it in for me" since then. My account registration predates the article in question by years. All my editing has been in genuine good faith and as far as I can tell I haven't added anything improper to this article, but I am entirely open to the possibility (and likelihood) that I have an imperfect understanding of Misplaced Pages's policies so if I have, please draw my attention to the relevant diffs and I will endeavour to learn from where I have gone wrong.

Since being asked to rewrite this article by User:Lifebaka, it's been on my watch list, hence I've made a few edits to it over time, usually in response to it hitting the top of my watchlist drawing it to my attention after it's been edited. Recently, there has been some debate over the reliability of one or two of the sources, although from the article talk page I got the impression this was settled now. While I don't have masses of time to spend editing Misplaced Pages, aside from this article I have edited a fair number of other articles and ranges of articles, including some which I have been putting ongoing effort into for some time now, and intend to continue doing so. I have also taken part in dozens of article for deletion discussions and deletion reviews. To me, these contributions have been far from trivial, and (I hope) certainly not in any way disruptive. If you do choose to look into this further and have any questions/queries/comments about me or my article edits, just let me know. Thanks, Wiw8 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree to avoid further editing of Jonty Haywood and related pages, and refrain from further attempts to create links to his website, and avoid any further collusion with User:Kernow or User:Jessi1989? That seems to be the area where you are having difficulties. Misplaced Pages has millions of articles. Surely you can find other things of interest. Jehochman 19:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)