| Revision as of 18:57, 18 December 2009 editCBM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →Re the Miami.. arbcom case: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:02, 18 December 2009 edit undoMiami33139 (talk | contribs)6,175 edits →Re the Miami.. arbcom caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
| Could you look at these pages? , . The comments at ] date back to 11 December, they are not recent; the AFD comments are from today, and seem to be more germane to me. In any case, some sort of action from the case's clerk would be helpful. It's never good when participants in a case begin to edit each others' comments. I don't think a block would be worthwhile (or I would have done it); as the clerk, you could set out some ground rules until the case it over. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | Could you look at these pages? , . The comments at ] date back to 11 December, they are not recent; the AFD comments are from today, and seem to be more germane to me. In any case, some sort of action from the case's clerk would be helpful. It's never good when participants in a case begin to edit each others' comments. I don't think a block would be worthwhile (or I would have done it); as the clerk, you could set out some ground rules until the case it over. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :He already did set out ground rules and told Tothwolf he would be blocked for continuing that behavior. The personal attacks and outing attempt on the video player article were removed several days ago and were re-inserted today. Tothwolf is making new attacks on the AfD. Tothwolf moving the personal attacks from the arbcom evidence page and re-inserting them into the article talk page (which is not what talk pages are for) is restoring a personal attack. Sceptre putting them back is contributing to the personal attack. ] (]) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:02, 18 December 2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| home |
Talk Page |
Workshop |
Site Map |
Userboxes |
Edits |
Email |
|
Coming here to ask why I reverted your edit? Read this page first... |
Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom. I usually notice messages soon. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, or I'm slow to reply, feel free to approach me here.
| Welcome to my talk page! I am an administrator here on Misplaced Pages. That means I am here to help. It does not mean that I have any special status or something, it just means that I get to push a few extra buttons to help maintain this encyclopedia. If you need help with something, feel free to ask. Click here to start a new topic.
|
| First, please remember that I am not trying to attack you, demean you, or hurt you in any way. I am only trying to protect the integrity of this project. If I did something wrong, let me know, but remember that I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please keep your comments civil. If you vandalize this page or swear at me, you will not only decrease the likelihood of a response, your edits could get you blocked. (see WP:NPA) When posting, do not assume I know which article you are talking about. If you leave a message saying "Why did you revert me?", I will not know what you mean. If you want a response consisting of something other than "What are you talking about", please include links and, if possible, diffs in your message. At the very least, mention the name of the article or user you are concerned with. If you are blocked from editing, you cannot post here, but your talk page is most likely open for you to edit. To request a review of your block, add Administrators: If you see me do something that you think is wrong, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo my actions. I would, however, appreciate it if you let me know what I did wrong, so that I can avoid doing it in the future. |
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.
Comments which I find to be uncivil, full of vulgarities, flame baiting, or that are are excessively rude may be deleted without response. If I choose not to answer, that's my right, don't keep putting it back. I'll just delete and get annoyed at you.
Clerk advice please
Despite the arbitration, Tothwolf is doing large scale removals of edits I previously did, usually with no edit summary. On the discussion page he isn't answering why, but is telling me to fuck off and accusing me of paid editing. . The paid editing accusation has no evidence in the arbitration and is a particularly egregious assault on my character - this community despises it as Jimbo has said it is never acceptable. I do not know how long this situation can simmer if the arbitration continues at idle. Is there anything that can be done in the mean time to make the attacks and revert warring stop? Miami33139 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If UrbanDictionary.com is now considered to be a reliable source then there are several articles I need to go add citations to.
As for large scale removals, exactly how many articles are part of this "large scale removal"? 2+2=5(?)...
What's to say I've not provided evidence of your sponsored editing Miami33139? You are the one who made several mistakes, the first being to engage in such editing with a clear and absolute conflict of interest. I and others also told you to leave me alone and disengage but even during the arbitration process you've continued to follow my contributions and prod/AfD my past contributions purely for harassment purposes. You have not and are not fooling anyone, Miami33139. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)- If you have made evidence of my being a paid editor, please show it to me. I am not a paid editor. Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, email it to Arbcom, this discussion has to stop, I've commented at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence#Personal attacks made while arbitration is underway and Tothwolf's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you have made evidence of my being a paid editor, please show it to me. I am not a paid editor. Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- To follow up with you on your comments and concerns, I already emailed Arbcom so we can certainly leave it at that.
Doug, now, I know you may not personally like what I have to say here, and while I'm going to keep my comments here civil they are going to be quite matter of fact. To put it bluntly, I feel as clerk you really should be taking a much more objective view of things and not taking the continued trolling of myself by Theserialcomma (who has been warned and told to disengage repeatedly by other administrators previously; see their talk page history ) as anything more than baseless trolling. Despite being warned, Theserialcomma continues to troll, wikihound, follow my contribs, prod/AfD articles from my contribs, and make false statements. None of this has yet to be addressed and I've provided plenty of evidence of these continued behaviours on the case's Evidence page that shows these behaviours continuing even during the Arbcom proceedings. Theserialcomma even did it here as well while following my contribs. There are many other administrators, both on-wiki and off-wiki, who have since been made aware of both Theserialcomma and Miami33139's continued behaviours, so this will no longer be happening in a vacuum anyway.
Considering that I've never been blocked, never been threatened with a block, and have not, nor have I even attempted to "out" anyone, I think you are going overboard with your comments here and here where you threaten me with a block for "outing". Considering Miami33139 has taken to harassing Hm2k now, and even moved sandbox articles from Mabdul's userspace to articlespace (an attempt to change from MfDing user pages to AfDing articles), someone really should be taking a much harder look at what Miami33139 has been up to.
Now, while I fully understand that you have a lot going on which has left you limited time to deal with issues relating to this case, this case is not the simple case people initially thought it would be and it really needs more attention directed its way. In the interest of stopping the disruptive behaviours from Theserialcomma and Miami33139, I suggest a proposal of an injunction for Miami33139 and Theserialcomma based on the actual evidence provided in the Arbcom case (which has been provided by both myself and others) that shows the continued patterns of harassment and gaming the system from these two specific editors.
If you wish to reply to my comments above, I'll gladly follow up with you here, otherwise I think what I've said above pretty much covers things and I intend to leave it at that. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)- I do however want to point out my comment here (which Miami33139 has removed and "moved") where I said: "That's all I intend to say about this issue." " discussing this further will be a WP:STICK issue." That should have made it readily apparent that I had already said what I needed to say and that I intended to leave it at that. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- To follow up with you on your comments and concerns, I already emailed Arbcom so we can certainly leave it at that.
- tothwolf, this is why you must be blocked for bad faith accusations. you claim i made this comment: ] by following your contribs. did you ever think that maybe i found that comment, instead of via your contribs, but through the public arbcom case against you? did you honestly forget about the arbcom case where this information was posted? this is an egregious violation of civility and failing to assume good faith, especially in the face of the timestamped evidence against you. while the right thing would be to retract your bad faith accusations in the face of this obvious evidence, the more pertinent issue is that you stop threatening to out people with erroneous information. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system.
The original working name for the RFAR was "Hounding of Tothwolf" (RFAR link), however Manning Bartlett went with a shorter name when he opened the case after it was accepted (case name discussion).
Considering that you've taken to harassing and wikihounding multiple editors (too many to name) and even administrators (such as Jéské Couriano, Georgewilliamherbert, and even SarekOfVulcan), with your last baiting attempt of Nukes4Tots leading to you being blocked, I'm not really surprised at all by your actions towards me.
Are you going to even attempt to explain this edit (which has also been presented as evidence in the Arbcom case)?
Theserialcomma, let me also be quite blunt with you: I'm not afraid of you or your bullying. Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either. You already know the case was not filed against me, it was filed on my behalf by Jehochman against yourself, Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system.
- Secret evidence
Doug, what is the procedure to see this secret evidence? Miami33139 (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You ask the arbitrators. E-mail us at the address at WP:ARBCOM. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note to all the above (posting here as an arbitrator) - please post evidence at the case pages, not here. Engaging in an argument on the talk page of the case clerk won't help matters at all. If you want to discuss the evidence or conduct of parties in this case, please do that at the case talk pages and not here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Laura Grimblay
Good point. I left a comment on User talk:Laura.grimblay about it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk procedures
I think that the {{ACA}} is an obsolete version of the template. On the proposed decision template, it has {{ACMajority}}. It seems that the two templates do the same thing, so I took an educated guess that that was the version I needed to subst ;-). Lankiveil 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
- ACMajority is the template used on the proposed decision page to indicate the majority. ACA is the template used on the proposed decision talk page to list the status of arbitrators. The former is only needed during the case, and what is needed when the case is closed is effectively a copy-paste of what it says at that point. After a case closes, the ACA template needs to be substituted to show who voted on the case and (importantly) who was recused. This is important when additional motions are later proposed during requests for clarification and amendment. In my view, substituting dumps unnecessary code and extra bits on the page. Copy pasting the relevant bits does just as well for both templates. The important thing is that the page is preserved in the state it was when the case closed. If the templates are left as they are, then future changes to the template can change what is displayed, which is not good. Hope that was a clear explanation. Doug, if Lankiveil doesn't see this, could you point him towards it? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's very clear, thanks. I'll probably revise the Procedures page tomorrow on the basis of this. I've pointed Lankiveil to this. And thanks for your help above. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Boas and Jews
Thanks for the heads up. My activity is down now beacause of RL but I will try to keep an eye on it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Leeman/Queensland University Press
Doug, I saw that you removed a reference to a work by Bernard Leeman from the Queensland Academic Press because of the lack of evidence that such a publisher exists. I agree: there isn't a single applicable Google hit for "Queensland Academic Press" -sheba -leeman. I started removing references to this work from other articles. A user named User:Ntsukunyane Mphanya has gone around adding references to this book in a number of places, both in the text and as a non-footnoted item in the References section. But some of the text additions mention a Kamal Salibi and an "Arabian Judah" theory, and I don't know anything about them or whether they are valid additions, so I'm not going to continue this exercise on my own. But I thought you might be interested in seeking out Misplaced Pages references to Bernard Leeman or Leeman, Bernard or Queensland Academic Press, or seeing what else Ntsukunyane Mphanya has been up to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know if you've seen the thread Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Kamal Salibi has his own article but I don't know more than that. I am slowly doing as you've suggested. I've found at least two examples of sources not backing the statement being sourced. And some OR. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, wow. Drama and intrigue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did find that the book exists and is available, for example, at the Lauinger Library at Georgetown University, and at the Smithsonian. I don't know whether the fact that these collections chose to include this book implies anything about the book's standing as a reliable source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be available at a few libraries that probably buy everything they can find (and may have been fooled by the name of the 'publisher' in any case. It doesn't speak to the use as an RS. I can still only find it cited in a couple of footnotes which themselves include several publications. That's important, it shows it isn't taken seriously and isn't a significant view. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Astrologer
From AN/I:
I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
So waitaminit: don't "astrologers" pretty much nix the whole NOTION of "God"? And doesn't the Bible put the kibosh on all that "sorcery"-type stuff? Methinks your "astrologer" may be a bit off....GJC 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
question
Sorry for being dense on this. But I can't seem to find the archive to which http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&curid=22747419&diff=331642728&oldid=331601810 this was moved... might you be able to point me to it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perfect. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thermopylae...again
Hi there,
I'm having some trouble with the Battle of Thermopylae infobox again—as you may have seen. An IP address user made some changes which I reverted because they were, I felt, unhelpful. However, after some to-ing and fro-ing, their purpose has become relatively clear - to insert as low an estimate as possible for the Persian army into the infobox.
Predictably enough, the IP user is now claiming to be a professional historian, and demonstrating their thoroughly "professional" conduct ; ; .
Whilst this is not vandalism, it is certainly disruptive editing, and all too reminiscent of good old Ariobarza. I'm fairly sure it isn't Ariobarza, since the IP address is registered in Croatia (Ariobarza seemed to live in the US, but who knows). However, I had a very similar run-in with a now banned user, User:Orijentolog (whose IP address was also in Croatia) a few months ago, regarding a different infobox. The style of insults was very similar .
To cut a long story short, I'm after advice. Do you think it would be reasonable to get check-user run on this IP address/addresses? They seem to change their IP address everyday, so I'm not sure if it would actually be possible (no idea how the system works). To me, it seems like a good possibility that they are a banned user, but I'm not really sure what the burden of proof needs to be.
Best, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Someone else has had the same thought and the IP has been blocked as a sock of Orijentolog. Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, I thought I'd replied. I had a crash which must have been at the same time. I was going to block if only because of the edit summaries but it was already blocked. I wrote that I'll try to keep tabs on it but let me know if there are further problems. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Jack Merridew motion
Hi. I see you archived this; . Putting the motion at:
seems wrong to me; that whole subpage is about the mentor-review and the proper place for the new motion would be:
This would seem to have been FloNight's intent when she skipped this level in the page hierarchy and it would allow the other discussion and the individual votes to be archived on the talk page as was done with the prior motion:
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Final decision
- Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Proposed motions voting
The Jack Merridew one year unban review page should also offer a link to the mentors page.
An even cleaner approach would have the page at:
... with the others tagging along or involve moving the prior motion to:
I made a few tweaks to the motion text adding wiki-links to the prior motion and to the bot account I had already created. I have also posted the new motion on my user page and on my history subpage. I would like this nice and tidy because it's part of my formal record. Thanks. Jack Merridew 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've already asked where it should go - I wanted to put it somewhere but I'm happy to move it, I'll pass your suggestions along. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I looked further and see this, which is giving last year's motion that's been superseded, not this new motion. This is a more verbose version of the entry down in the 2008 section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really always best to put this sort of thing on the Clerks page so everyone can see it. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see; continuing thread there. Thanks. Jack Merridew 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really always best to put this sort of thing on the Clerks page so everyone can see it. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I looked further and see this, which is giving last year's motion that's been superseded, not this new motion. This is a more verbose version of the entry down in the 2008 section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 December 2009
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
The article has also been nominated for AFD, .Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Re the Miami.. arbcom case
Could you look at these pages? , . The comments at Talk:Comparison_of_video_player_software date back to 11 December, they are not recent; the AFD comments are from today, and seem to be more germane to me. In any case, some sort of action from the case's clerk would be helpful. It's never good when participants in a case begin to edit each others' comments. I don't think a block would be worthwhile (or I would have done it); as the clerk, you could set out some ground rules until the case it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- He already did set out ground rules and told Tothwolf he would be blocked for continuing that behavior. The personal attacks and outing attempt on the video player article were removed several days ago and were re-inserted today. Tothwolf is making new attacks on the AfD. Tothwolf moving the personal attacks from the arbcom evidence page and re-inserting them into the article talk page (which is not what talk pages are for) is restoring a personal attack. Sceptre putting them back is contributing to the personal attack. Miami33139 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)