User talk:Coren

Storage Deluxe

Hi Coren - I think your bot mistakenly determined that the new wiki page for "Storage deluxe" was a copy of the website content from storagedeluxe.com. I am not an employee of Storage Deluxe, and have every intention of adhering to Wikipedia's editorial policies.
12 Dec 2009 11:05 am EST

Copyright owner

Some of the text present in the article comes from NoCrew official site. The copyright of the website has been donated by Nocrew LLC to Wikipedia after contacting your office. Please not that non of the text in this article present any form of copyright violation.

Originator of definition on www.wikipedia.org

CorenSearchBot has marked my definitions as copyrighted conflicts on wikipedia as they are already listed in www.wikimheda.org. I am the originator all these three definitions on both wikimheda.org and have now on wikipedia. I work for: GBI Data & Sorting Systems, my name is Peggy Forster. The three headings are: Tilt Tray Sorter, Cross Belt Sorter, and Carrier Sorter. As I wrote both definitions, this is not a copyright issue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PegFor (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Election talk page

Just FYI, I moved both of our comments in the "A Side Issue" thread that I started, into a new main section, "After the election." I did not want the issue that I raised to get "lost" amidst the "are-we-there-yet" discussion in the section it was in. But I also didn't want you to think someone removed your comment -- it is just moved to the bottom of the page. Neutron (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock Giano

Seriously, do it now. If you think action is needed, get consensus for it. This just looks like Arbs bullying Giano into silence (again) because they have an issue with the accusations he is making. If he's wrong, then the best approach is to counter what he's saying, not force his silence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I also dispute that this excessive block is fair or required to protect the wikipedia at all. Please reconsider. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you can make it stick any more than Giano can prove his accusations. Best to just let it be unless you're prepared to stake your reputation on it. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed - He was being mildly confrontational and provocative, and assuming bad faith, but not broaching the level of disruption or abusive/uncivil comments in that thread on the audit committee page.

We see five worse things pop up daily on ANI. This wasn't proportionate.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The point isn't that single incident, but a pattern of offensive and disruptive behavior that has lasted for at least two years. This is moot, anyways, given that I was reverted by another administrator who did not even have the courtesy of discussing the matter with me first. — Coren ^(talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, only vandalisers should be indef-blocked. To my knowledge, Giano ain't a vandaliser. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, policy supports blocking for every kind of disruption; not just vandalism. A good argument can be made that Giano's net contribution to the project has been considerably more destructive than most vandals ever have been. He's contributed a great deal of good contents, especially in the oft-neglected field of architecture, but because of this contribution he has been left to attack and drive away a large number of other editors who, collectively, were also just as valuable as he was. — Coren ^(talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I reckon ya got me there. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Coren's got you there. Good content is not a pass to insult users and make personal attacks and certainly not for a long period of time. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I leave it in your (the administrators) hands. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I don't disagree that a long term pattern of disruption is blockable, even indef-blockable. And Giano certainly has had some form of long term pattern of disruption. But I think that, absent a particularly oustanding example incident as the percipitating excuse, we largely overstep what the community supports if we just impose these. I think a RFC to the extent that Giano is tending to attack people or assume bad faith or act disruptively in toto in how he engages on ANI and other related forums would be productive, and might be sufficient to support topic bans or other restrictions. If he had gone off the rails truly excessively and without provocation here, that would be sufficient. But neither of those is the case. Exhausting an admins patience is not the same as exhausting community patience. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps; there is some wisdom in what you say and I'd be tempted to agree if history has not shown repeatedly that Giano inspires such fear of drama that any action towards attempting to address the matter is rapidly overturned regardless of the context and that community discussion is usually derailed out of fear of "censoring dissent" — a fear Giano is quite willing to exploit even if it means inventing conspiracies to dissent against. I'm in the process of filing a request for (the rest of) ArbCom to settle this. — Coren ^(talk) 00:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of Giano. I certainly am not supporting him here because he was behaving well. But I do feel that he wasn't behaving that badly by normal standards. Had that sequence of comments been another, random editor, they would not have been blockable. Even in context with his history, this was relatively mundane.

I have stated in the past that, with sufficient offense in evidence, I'd be willing to block anyone including Jimbo or an Arbcom member. That certainly applies to Giano. This simply IMHO didn't amount to nearly sufficient justification.

I agree on the unblock discussion point you made elsewhere, but I think the ultimate result was appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Also - see the proposed Ottava Rima decision, which you are obviously familiar with. He was not simply blocked; the process played out as it is supposed to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the parallel is that clear; I am no longer convinced that Giano is in good faith but misguided, something which seemed clear with Ottava. — Coren ^(talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not clear to me. I am open to being convinced, but I don't see it myself at this time. If you are right and can convince me and others, that would change the situation, yes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)The notion that Giano "drives away" editors needs to be challenged some time, Coren. Ottava Rima, whose vendetta against me you didn't indeed block for, but called a "personality conflict" when he asked you about it,[1] very likely does drive away editors, as the ArbCom now seems to have realized. He's several times made me feel like walking away, certainly; compare my diffs on the "Ottava Rima Restrictions" evidence page; did you for example click on this one, which Ottava gave you, before you said "personality conflict"? But Giano? What working editors has he driven away? In "large numbers", yet? It's a myth. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

Bish, the time for providing evidence is during the case; there is little point in rehashing this here redundantly. I do find it interesting how you can notice how Ottava has driven good editors away in frustration — which has had the unfortunate consequence that we needed to exclude him; but somehow think that Giano's behavior has no such effect. Perhaps the fact that you are amongst his friends is a factor, given that you would find yourself on the "right" side of his wrath and would not feel it yourself? — Coren ^(talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps you being an arbitrator makes you the less used to expressions of wrath? Anyway, you had no comment when I mentioned that dialogue during the case.([2], scroll down) — and now it's gone all redundant. I guess you have no regrets <shrug>. I won't mention it again. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

(undent) Well, the problem with this is that most people believe they are speaking the Truth^TM, even if they are deluding themselves. When someone speaks of vast conspiracies against them, of of editors banding to oppress them, it's not really possible to determine how sincere they are in their beliefs — nor is it useful for the end result remains that they are unable to work in a collaborative environment. — Coren ^(talk) 02:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

From Giano's point of view there's a secret mailing list where people are discussing how to get rid of him or what to do with him. That list, arbcom-l, is a big part of the problem. You folks operate in an echo chamber and don't always have a good feel for community sentiments. If you think Giano, or any well known editor, needs to be sanctioned, you have to make a case to the community, or else you'll simply be overturned. ArbCom can help in edge cases where the community is split. With Giano, it's not really a split. He enjoys 60/40 support. If you try to sanction him, you'll do more damage to yourself than to him. I'm not saying things should or should not be this way. These are the realities. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[...enjoys 60/40 support...] Just out of curiousity, are there any empirical data for this? —Amelioration 06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, how do we get you recalled? An Arbcom has no business holding consensus in disdain. Someone who makes blocks based on their personal opinions and rejects the views of other editors is disruptive and damaging to the project. Also, this personal attack you made: "only based on hallucinations of vast conspiracies and widespread corruption that exist only in your mind, you're stepping over a line that should not be crossed by anyone" is unacceptable. I read Giano's page weeks ago when you appeared there as a threatening bully telling him what to do and that he shouldn't be allowed to question secret processes. You told him he had to be patient. And yet the report you promised hasn't been released.

I'm sorry if Rlevse is embarassed by her involvement in an improper oversighting, but you have no business blocking against consensus to punish a user you don't like. Please fix your mess, apologize and avoid causing inappropriate disruptions of this kind in the future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment:

1. [...how do we get you recalled...] Even if there were a recall mechanism, I seriously doubt anyone believes there would really be community support to recall the Arbitrator in question. Thus, mentions of recall are inflammatory and demagogic.
2. [...hallucinations...] I agree that this may not have been the most diplomatic word choice - but altogether it's a rather minor point.
3. [...Rlevse...her...] A rather amusing mistake given the issue that set this situation off...

In any case, I suspect the reasonable deliberations of the Committee may be well-suited to working out a practical solution to the long-term behavioral issues in this case. —Amelioration 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So indefinitely blocking good faith contributors against consensus is okay, but inquiring how we get rid of abusive arbcom's is "inflammatory and demagogic"? I disagree. Your statement is both absurd and hypocritical.

May not have been diplomatic word choice? Minor? Telling people they are hallucinating and dismissing their complaints and concerns in that fashion is totally unacceptable. From an arbcom it's definitely not minor.

Arbs and admins like Coren who run roughshod over members of the community they disagree with and don't like cause an enormous amount of damage and disruption. No one should be above consensus or allowed to disrespect fellow contributors in good standing the way he has. Making apologias for his unacceptable behavior isn't helpful.

And now I see Coren is pursuing an Arbcom case, despite his inappropriate and involved block being disputed almost unanimously. This kind of wikipolitics and vendetta pursuit is totally improper and no sitting Arb should be engaging in that kind of nonsense. What an utter waste of time. Step down already and be done with it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not understand what business you have in holding the flags, since you seem incapable in using them appropriately in regard to editors you disagree with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'd be right if you were anywhere near the truth in this case. I have no bone to pick with Giano, I've never been in any dispute with him outside my futile attempts at enforcing a minimal level of civilized behavior, and the invectives and untruth he directs at me specifically do not cause any sort of resentment because they are meaningless to me. What I do see is someone who causes, repeatedly and over a very long period of time, a great deal of disruption. Whether he actually believes his grandstanding as the defender against corruption and conspiracies has lost relevance years ago; the fact remains that he finds himself at the center of heated controversies over and over again, with tens and dozens of different editors involved every time. Either he truly is a maligned victim of multiple conspiracies, or he is the problem. Either way, something needs to be done.

The only reason he was not banned long ago is that there remains a small but vocal minority of editors (including admins) who are willing to defend his actions repeatedly regardless of what they are and what the consequences are. Some out of a desire to support his campaign against authority in all its form regardless of merit, some because they share his delusions about vast corrupt political schemings, some are simple sycophants attempting to curry his favor, and some simply because they are uninformed but made the mistake of taking his wilder accusations at face value (because they would be damning if they weren't completely fabricated). There too, the motives have long lost any relevance; the problem is the effect: the community is no longer capable of dealing with him. — Coren ^(talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an exceedingly unfair characterization of those opposing his blocking, Coren. Look at the people who have opposed it here. Are you ready to say all these people are either joining in his campaign against authority, delusional about vast conspiracies or sycophants? I have some news for you: I oppose his being blocked, and I'm none of those three, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first off, you'll note the fourth alternative which is none of the first three (obviously). Secondly, I did not say that this was an exhaustive list; I'm no more able to read people's minds than you are, and I make no pretension of classifying you in any category, let alone a specific one. As I've said, the motives are by now completely immaterial anyways: the net effect is that Giano now has complete immunity against any attempt to correct his misbehavior and that needs to be fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I haven't been properly blocked in nearly 5 years. Does that mean I'm immune to blocking too? Yes, Giano frequently pisses off people in positions of power, but "pissed me off" isn't a valid block reason. Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct. Which is why I didn't even consider blocking him for this reason. I blocked him as a consequence of his continuing disruption, incivility and personal attacks after I had warned him that, while he was welcome to seek redress about what he perceived to be mishandling of the original incident, he was do to so while showing minimal civility. That he mischaracterized that warning as "threatening to block him for complaining", which is obviously false when it is actually read, is immaterial. — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had people do much worse to me, and they weren't blocked. The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. This is the problem that deserves our attention much more than the single instance of Giano's remarks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, I agree with that! I suppose it's no surprise that worry about so-called "vested contributors" is a recurring theme; and it's no secret that vast allowances are made for editors who behave atrociously in some areas if they contribute valuably to others. I believe this is fundamentally unfair, and needs to be fixed; I'm hoping this case might help give a foundation for this — not because Giano needs or deserves to be made an example of any more than dozens of other editors — but because he is a salient, and particularly divisive, instance of the general problem. — Coren ^(talk) 15:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So should I then change it to, "people with whom you feel are permitted too much allowance to air their grievances..."? Giano does not cause all disruption related to him, but is often the fulcrum for it. This previous matter is a case in point; someone totally misunderstands a reference made by Giano and, because it is Giano, there is a full blown hunt for an oversighter who will remove (is it the case that local oversighters refused to act, understanding the context?) the "offending remarks", and the subsequent calls for sanction for it and outraged responses by Giano to these calls. Where is Giano at fault? On what basis should Giano be blocked because some people run around with their arses in their hand because Giano has said something which might, with a little effort, be construed as an attempt to disclose the first name of someone who may or may not be familiar with some place in a rather large continent? Or the recent matter of the Mattisse ArbCom motion, where that editor referenced Giano specifically in one of their justifications - and to what purpose? Where is Giano at fault? I shall make it easy for you - Giano is at fault for not being sanguine about being the target for those whose faculties do not permit them to exercise the restraint, civility, and respect that they demand should be shown by Giano. That is no basis on which editors should have their editing privileges removed. If people do not like the manner in which Giano responds to stupidity, whether by action or comment, then it beholds them to not be so stupid when dealing with him - or failing that remove themselves from commenting or acting in regard to Giano. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Giano is at fault for calling people liars and worse, fabricating insulting "facts" about people, then insulting them over those imagined flaws, creating controversy where none exist then demanding reparation over events that never occurred with insults and invective. For instance, your description of the precipitating events are completely false. There was no "full blown hunt" for anything; nothing was suppressed because it was Giano, and the "outraged" response by Giano were completely out of proportion to his imagine slight — especially since it was already clear at that time that the suppressions were erroneous and borne of a misunderstanding — and directed at people who had absolutely no part in the matter to boot. — Coren ^(talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Acting upon the bad faith and erroneous supposition that Giano would out another editor is only a misunderstanding, yet Giano terming another editor a liar (which I agree is grounds for a warning and possibly a sanction) for misrepresenting Giano, and his motives, in a public venue is grounds for blocking Giano? You blocked Giano precisely because of his personal attacks upon individuals, yet those who claimed Giano to be the type of editor (and thus person) who would publicise the identity of an editor against their wishes - and an allegation of such turpitude is certainly a personal attack - are to be noted only as having a misunderstanding (and not even counseled to perhaps to request the input of other editors)? Do you not see the inbalance between what is proposed to be required of Giano, and yet felt unworthy of prolonged let alone adverse comment of those who act toward Giano as he is noted to have done? Giano calls someone a liar (and worse, whatever that might be) for publicising mistruths or "misunderstandings" about him, and is blocked for it, yet someone denotes him an outing vandal and receives no official censure or even acknowledgement that it was bad faith assumption? This is reasonable, because...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because, in one case, it was a (not sufficiently) quickly reverted error that many people took pains to explain as such; and in the other is it habitual, and has regularly been warned against. Giano calling other editors liars, deceitful, etc. is frequent; and I've yet to see him hint that he may have done so in error even a single time, let alone state it. He's been repeatedly warned away (and sanctioned) for such personal attacks in the past and is either unable or unwilling to desist. — Coren ^(talk) 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it is obvious that we are no nearer to encompassing each others viewpoint in regard to this (and we may be returning to it at another venue) I think I shall withdraw from this page - leaving me only to apologise for both the tone and presumption of my opening comments. I do not think you should be denied access to the flags generally, but perhaps I might suggest that you use them only to enact clear community consensus in some particularly contentious areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem lies not with the Editor's initial concern, but over his continued refusal to drop the matter. The suppressed edits have been restored. What further is to be gained by advancing conspiracy theories? —Amelioration 21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be most productive to drop the case, and instead go to WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL and set up clear boundaries to help normalize enforcement. Once that is done, if Giano or anybody else crosses those boundaries, it will be much easier to block them, and make it stick. A one off instance of the "wrong result" is inconsequential compared to getting the general pattern right. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was easy enough to modify policy. I've offered up a motion on that basis. Jehochman ^Talk 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way we could give disruptive but valuable editors their own private sandpit to work in, while banning them from their extremely destructive politicking and attacks? This shouldn't be difficult to do. A lot of like-minded people might all want to go off and edit the B-Wikipedia, and both wikis would share the same licence so no good work would be lost. Okay, we might want to call it the "A-Wikipedia", so as to preserve these drama queens' vanity.

I have a theory that Wikipedia's tradition of strong collaborative editing is incompatible with the production of "Featured articles" and the like--this isn't entirely unrelated to the ideas outlined in Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. It's obvious that Wikipedia's greatest strengths are not represented by the featured articles that seem to be so popular with the most disruptive of our content contributors. Articles that stres appearance and style over verifiable content miss, it seems to me, the essential nature of Wikipedia. Particularly strong writers might find a more suitable home at Citizendium.

I've waited for something to be done about this ongoing disruption for about three years, and in that time I've seen a previously unknown cynicism creep into the heart of Wikipedia. But we know from childhood what to do about bullies: we confront them and take away their powers. This is what we should do to those who would hold Wikipedia hostage. --TS 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and we have done, in the sense that we've confronted you and made you give up your admin tools, Tony. A propos of bullying, do you recollect your role in IRC? I have noted here—courteously, I hope—that that case was primarily about you and me, not about Giano as Coren apparently thought. (Giano and Bunchofgrapes tried to defend me, that's all.) Perhaps you care to comment? Bishonen | talk 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

The problem is that this risks creating a two-tier system, and that goes counter to some of our most important principles. The danger of the appeal of trying to just shove anyone who may have problems to Wikipedia-2nd class rather than guide them to become good contributors would be deadly to both. — Coren ^(talk) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

To Jehochman's now quite far above, the notion of "powerful" individuals runs contrary to the notion of a community built on egalitarianism and collegiality. No? Anyone who is "powerful" is so because others allow them to be so.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The current committee is Good People, and I'm sure you'll fit right in. — Coren ^(talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed! Congratulations on your strong support in the Committee elections. Keep up the good work! —Amelioration 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats to you too. Believe it or not, I actually voted for you! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I did vote for candidates that I disagree with; what's important is "will they do a good job" more than "do I agree with all of their positions". I appreciate your support for the former, even if you don't subscribe to the latter.  :-)

• Please allow me to add my congratulations. I look forward to seeing your continued work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations to you too! KnightLago (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Congratulations! I voted for you on the basis of your thoughtful response to my questions—thoughtfulness and due consideration are often in short supply.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CU suspicions of Moreschi sock puppeting

Coren, part of my case rested on that there was suspicious involvement between Moreschi and Folantin that made it appear that there was an inappropriate relationship. Normally, a CU is done when it appears to be what is meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Not having a match does not mean meat puppetry.

Since you supported a statement saying there was nothing suspicious about Moreschi's edits, I want you to publicly state for everyone who performed a CU check on Moreschi because of him having a suspicious editing pattern. We have talked about this before, and I am concerned by your recent quietness on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mistake "checking to be sure" with "there is something wrong". Your mistake lies in not being satisfied with the conclusion, so convinced were you of the correctness of your suspicions. — Coren ^(talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, are you admitting that you performed a check without the appropriate evidence according to the WMF standards? Because you are either admitting to violating standards or you are admitting that there was enough evidence to warrant a strong suspicion of Moreschi. Which of the two is it? They are mutually exclusive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly allowable to check an allegation from an editor if there would be disruption were that allegation correct. This is, in fact, what usually happens at SPI. I also should point out that, before you invoke the foundation standards, you should actually read up on them; there is no "appropriate evidence" criterion. — Coren ^(talk) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't speak down to me when I already do my research before confronting people - "In case of abusive use of the tool, the Steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed. This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)." You have to have reasonable evidence or it isn't acceptable. That is what all CUs know. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"links and proofs of bad behavior" of abusive use of the tool. Your research was, I suspect, compromised by confirmation bias. — Coren ^(talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You took the last clause dealing with how to prove it and ignored the first clause about what is unacceptable: "This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so". Serious motive. Do you not know what that means? That is "appropriate evidence". There is no way around it Coren. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You claimed that there was nothing suspicious enough about Moreschi edits to warrant an accusation of meat puppetry. Obviously, if you had enough suspicion to check him for sock puppetry, then there IS suspicion enough to verify claiming that they were meat puppets. That is fact. Your statements in my ArbCom case are directly contradictory to your own actions. You thought that there was more than enough evidence that Moreschi could have had a sock. You have verified more than enough that there is evidence that a reasonable person would view Moreschi with suspicion. I had to make it public because you were unwilling to. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, are you going to say that you just randomly check user people without there being suspicious edits? I believe if that is the case, Giano might have a strong argument in his asking for your removal. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusions are derived from your own convictions, and not from the facts at hand. An editor made a specific allegation to a member of the Committee; this allegation was verified and found to be unfounded. Case closed. There is no contradiction, except between what you imagine my motives to have been and what reality is. — Coren ^(talk) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unfounded after checking. It wouldn't have been checked if it was unfounded before checking. Furthermore, the CU check does not disprove meat puppetry. It only disproves -sock- puppetry. The fact that you even bothered to do a CU check means that you thought there was sufficient need which verifies that there was enough evidence of inappropriate edits. Coren, it is obvious to just about anyone who looks here. But you keep digging yourself in a manner that is proving that Giano's claims about you are correct as you just claimed above that you could CU whenever you want without any evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just begging the question by using your own reasoning to assert that your reasoning is correct. It is not. Further discussion of findings should be taken to the case pages; allegations that there was misuse of checkuser should be taken to the audit subcommitee. Otherwise, this discussion is not productive and is over. — Coren ^(talk) 05:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I originally stated your use of CU was correct because you originally used it because there was a lot of suspicion surrounding Moreschi based on evidence out there. You were the one that started making claims that backtracked on that. You could have easily admit that I was right to be suspicious but that the sock puppetry (but not meat puppetry) was proven to be unfounded. I accepted that when the results came back. That does not mean the meat puppetry does not exist, but, quite the opposite, there is more evidence that it was meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you think I'm an awful person. Fine. You blocked one long term sock puppet used to harass me. You have plenty of evidence about the rest. I had to put up with a lot of shit but you couldn't even give me the curteousy of accepting Rlevse's mentorship plan. Hell, I made it clear I was willing to not edit anything but article space - not talk, not Wiki, nothing. The mentorship even made it clear that I would not edit war or revert, and that I wouldnt have any ability to fight with people. The fact that you couldn't even give me that is startling. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Charnel ground

I ported information wholesale due to the license of the Rigpa Shedra wiki and would very much appreciate assistance in branding the information as so-ported through the license identified.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML arbcom case

This 3RR report Wikipedia:AN3#User:Pantherskin_reported_by_User:Martintg_.28Result:_.29 might be related to the current EEML arbcom case as there seems to be coordination between User:Martintg and User:Miacek and a mysterious newly registered third account User:Bobwikwiki. Pantherskin (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I raised this question some ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_6#Regarding_.C2.A711_.28amnesty.29. Although some progress has been made by introducing FoF for most editors, User:Poeticbent is missing so far despite a previous Fof and sanctions in the Eastern European disputes arbcom case, and despite at least three attempts to disrupt Wikipedia [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], [20090731-0608]. Even worse, there does not seem to be an understanding that canvassing is disruptive as is evidenced by this comment [3] and this post-EEML sockpuppet investigation and this subsequent comment [4]. It was previously suggest to assign a mentor what seems to be an appropriate given that there is some confusion about appropriate editing and wikipedia policies. Pantherskin (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late to add to the already painfully long EEML case; but I don't think that any of this is surprising. With luck, the remedies will alleviate this for some time to come. — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyceum, Port Sunlight - suggested copyright violation

None of the text was taken from here and the image is taken from Geograph Social club. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML

I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)