Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LieberHund (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 24 September 2008 (→Sockpuppetry: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Janeyryan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Giggy 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best. I have been 'lurking' but hope to contribute more.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

Can you confirm that you are meeting all of the conditions in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors_instructed? In particular, is this your primary or sole account? Please be aware that the Arbitration Committee's decision includes the talk pages of the articles involved. Please note also that, if you have edited the article or talk page under another user name, and have not linked this account to the previous user name, that may also be in contravention of the Arbitration Committee decision. It is not my desire to remove you from this discussion; however, it is important that you be aware that concerns have been expressed in your participation, and that the Arbitration Committee decision applies to you as well as to any other editor. Thank you. Risker (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer in all respects is 'no' 'yes' and 'so confirmed' and I will repeat that on your page.--Janeyryan (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to verify what you have said above: Your answer to the question "is this your primary or sole account" is no? Risker (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Double negative time: I meant to say 'no' to 'not' meaning that this is my primary and only account, now and ever since the dawn of Time.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am turning 'no' to 'yes', as Risker was correct in being confused and I was genuinely unclear. Apologies.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Claiming this account is an alternate account of Tony Sidaway

I have my doubts that this is correct, as (a)Janeyryan was editing at approximately the same time and did not place the template him/herself; (b)there is no reason that the User:RegenerateThis account (the last public account of Tony Sidaway) could not have placed the template; and (c) since Tony Sidaway had indeed edited some of the articles included in the above-noted Arbcom decision, and Janeyryan had stated full compliance with the Arbcom restrictions, claiming now to be an alternate account of Tony Sidaway would place this account in abeyance of the ruling. (Alternate accounts are not permitted to edit either the articles or the talk pages.) I will be requesting a checkuser to determine if the IP behind Janeyryan and the IP posting the template are the same, unless Janeyryan objects, in which case the template claiming this account is an alternate account of Tony Sidaway will be removed, and will propose on WP:ANI that the IP be blocked for disruption. The ball is in your court, Janeyryan. Risker (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This was vandalism by someone not myself, and I thank you for deleting it. I am not Tony Sidaway, Tony Soprano, or any other kind of Tony. --Janeyryan (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that, Janeyryan. Risker (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do understand me

It's obvious you're a returning user of some sort. I suggest you alert a checkuser of your old account, so that they can confirm your compliance with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Editors_instructed. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you not edit the main page of this article, especially if you could stop reinserting the material of a user who has been banned now from five accounts. Cool Hand Luke 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've affirmed that I am not a returning user on at least one occasion, and your request presupposes that. But that is not the case. I have no idea what material I am reinserting or who has been banned from what. What I reinserted had been in the article for quite a bit of time, apparently. --Janeyryan (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and editing against consensus on Naked short selling

The Naked short selling article + 3 related articles are under sanctions imposed by the arb. com., see: You have made Ad hominem arguments against admin Risker (saying he is one of the "Byrne-people" , (when Risker has never even, AFAIK, edited any of the articles in question.)) Your latest uncivil remark is against Cool Hand, who you, in effect, accuse of POV-pushing . In addition, you have made controversial edits of the article against consensus . I find your edits on this article both disruptive and uncivil. If you make more edits in the same vein, I will ask to have you banned from the articles in question. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have attacked no one and would request that you not try to gain advantage in a content dispute in this fashion.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is true I have never edited any of these articles (perhaps an obvious vandalism revert, but no content changes as far as I can recall), I can quite assure everyone that I am not one of the "Byrne-people". Indeed, (assuming good faith and all), it wouldn't surprise me if Janeyryan is a bit embarrassed by the post you have linked above, especially since a few days later I was the one who verified that s/he was not the same person as another Misplaced Pages editor who had worked extensively on several of the articles, thus permitting Janeyryan to continue editing instead of being blocked from Misplaced Pages. I'm not losing any sleep over anything anyone says about me, on this or any other article in which I have been watching over informally from an administrative perspective. On the other hand, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the level of discourse from Janeyryan with respect to other editors. Janeyryan, please take Huldra's concerns seriously. These are problematic articles that require diplomatic and content-focused discussions, without anyone ascribing motives to anyone else. I think it is time to reinforce that to the general audience on the talk page, and I shall do that now. Risker (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been subjected to something short of a welcome wagon since arriving in these articles, and subjected to posts in article talk space directed at me personally without sanction. I've tried to respond with restraint to those obviously intent on picking a fight with me, but it has been difficult.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Janayryan, there is good reason for the lack of a welcome wagon. Any editor who has experience with contentious areas of the encyclopedia will naturally have some concern about a new editor who suddenly appears and begins their editing career in a wide variety of contentious articles, clearly well informed about past discussions and history. The majority of such editors are subsequently found to be alternate accounts of current editors or returning editors who have previously participated under another username. In the case of the NSS article, there was already a history of very complex and damaging sockpuppetry. Rather than allow the suspicions about you to fester, I felt it better to address the concerns head-on by asking you point blank, and then ensured that false accusations that you were another editor were dispelled as quickly as possible. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, so the questions about your past were legitimate under the circumstances. On the other hand, since it appears all legitimate concerns have been addressed, I do not see any reason for you to be treated differently than any other editor participating in a contentious area. Risker (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little hard for me to believe that you folks are going to go through this routine all over again, but hey, I'm a bystander. It's your page. Respect to all, especially those who already clearly have their doubts. PatrickByrne (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good faith question

As a new user, as you indicated you are, may I ask what drew you, as seen here in this report to almost exclusively edit the particular articles of:

Mainspace

1. 15 Chip Berlet
2. 14 Naked short selling
3. 12 Misplaced Pages Review
4. 3 Criticism of Misplaced Pages
5. 2 A Dictionary of the English Language

The Berlet, Naked short selling, and Misplaced Pages Review articles have no interaction or relationship in any way, shape or form in the "real world" that I am aware of, and their rather complex relationship is entirely a creation on Misplaced Pages, through the fact the subjects are discussed at length in the outside, 3rd party forum "Misplaced Pages Review". So, I'm just basically curious. What made you home right in on those articles, which are very challenging editing subjects even for very experienced Misplaced Pages users, which you are not? rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/SlimVirgin (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.