Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2012/Magister Mathematicae

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Just as a note, most some users opposing here had previously been, or are currently blocked on es.wikipedia. This request is also very likely to be canvassed from external blogs. Savhñ 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think that's more the reasons of opposing comments than the number of votes that are taken into account by the election committee. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that you are generalizing, Savh, I voted against and see others who have done likewise who have not been blocked and are not following the recommendations of any external blog but are doing so because of their own convictions and perceptions. Rather unfair on your part you to cast a shadow of doubt on the rationale behind the opposing votes. --Maragm 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
At the moment of my coment, that was the situation. [1]. I also would like to make clear that there is nothing wrong with opposing, but I found it useful to add this information to help other voters and the electcom. It is in any case surprising that, now, half of the opposing users have been or are blocked. Savhñ 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and there is a very heated argument going on in on the fairness of recent blocks. It's the first time that I vote in an election for stewards so I'm not sure if remarks on the reason for our votes could be explained in this page, but if that is the case, I have no problem whatsoever explaining why I voted the way I did. Regards, --Maragm 16:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Surely, it would be appreciated, if an oppose vote would be explained instead of just voting against the candidate, so that noone can understand that. Opposing without reasoning why will surely not be counted the same as opposing with explanation of the reasons (cause there is no checking of eligibility here, but only the arguments are counted, especially why he shouldn't do the job next year as he did before). Up to now, I'm only seeing one opposing comment/argument at Mar del Sur which I don't understand either without having the background behind it. All others give no reason and no comment at all. If there has been any discussion at, I'd like to have a chance to read it, but I won't go on and search it anywhere in the wiki universum. At the moment, I just don't understand anything what might have been going on, and so I don't have any opinion at all, cause I just don't remember the candidate at all. --Geitost diskusjon 17:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you also have a link to the discussion of these blocks? --Geitost diskusjon 21:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Many blocks in Spanish Wikipedia are done out of the sight of the community, between a few privileged sysops (normally drini is in the smack middle of them all, though). Also they always delete userpages of the blocked and any other thing that can cause them problems. --Billyrobshaw 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

translations of voting comments[edit]

For better understanding of the comments. If anyone wants to translate something also into English or whatever else … --Geitost diskusjon 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(English) Keep, one of the experienced ones! —DerHexer (Talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(German) behalten, einer der Erfahreneren! —DerHexer (Talk) 00:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(English) Still an effective contributor with the tools --Herby talk thyme 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(German) Immer noch ein effektiver Mitarbeiter bei den Tools --Herby talk thyme 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(English) Oppose Oppose -- Mar del Sur 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Has played a negative role: lack of transparency, arbitrary decisions, careless treatment of private data.
(German) Oppose Dagegen -- Mar del Sur 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Hat eine negative Rolle gespielt: Mangel an Transparenz, willkürliche Entscheidungen, leichtfertige Verwendung privater Daten.
(Spanish) Keep Keep Laura Fiorucci 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Ha realizado un trabajo estupendo. Siempre confliable.
(German) Keep behalten Laura Fiorucci 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Er hat eine erstaunliche Arbeit geleistet. Immer zuverlässig (= confiable).
(Spanish) Oppose Oppose Wikisilki 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Recientemente ha divulgado información personal sobre una usuaria durante una denuncia en el TAB.
(German) Oppose Dagegen Wikisilki 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Er hat kürzlich persönliche Informationen zu einer Benutzerin während einer Beschwerde in dem/der „TAB“ veröffentlicht.
(Spanish) Oppose En contra Lin linao 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Le falta calma cuando surgen conflictos. Ha divulgado en Wikipedia las direcciones de correo electrónico de quienes lo acosaban y los ha llamado "hijos de puta".
(German) Oppose Kontra Lin linao 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Ihm fehlt die Ruhe, wenn Konflikte entstehen. Er hat in der Wikipedia die E-Mail-Adressen von denen veröffentlicht, die ihn belästigt haben und hat sie „Hurensöhne“ genannt.
+ Link for that without the e-mail addresses: Wikipedia:Café/Portal/Archivo/Miscelánea/2011/11#Usuarios indeseables

discussion voting comments[edit]

If anyone wants to discuss the comments, then better below … --Geitost diskusjon 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a question now to the posted link: Why haven't the e-mail addresses (or any other personal data) been oversighted until now? Since this happened already in Novembre. Is it a normal thing to reveal such data in the Spanish Wikipedia and let it be there for months, if obviously the fact is well known there? --Geitost diskusjon 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Without knowing the whole context of the situation, I only can say that there have been cases in German WP when persons post the real name of another person in situations of conflicts, i.g. while the other user himself links to his own website (with the real name) on his own user page. It has happened that the user who posted the real name on another frequently used WP page has been blocked for a short time, and also wasn't unblocked after checking the block by other admins, because the block has been found right (and posting the real name in a conflict situation on the frequently used page has been seen as an offense to the other user). There have been a few discussions about this and similar cases. The rule says that a person should not reveal a real name if the other person doesn't want that. And renaming an account from the real name to another nick, should be a clear sign that someone doesn't want to have the real name get so much into the public anymore. So, anyone should be very careful about using real names of accounts with nicknames in public (and be sure the other person wants that). Only the fact, that the person self-revealed the real name in previous times or used it as own account name, is not reason enough to still use it afterwards.
And I don't see any reason at all that anyone should reveal personal e-mail addresses of other persons. Most of the time, such addresses are not posted in public by the persons themselves (because the special e-mail function exists for that). Even if the whole situation is getting out of control, a person always should know where the borders are. Normally, that should be self-evident. That posted link and also the versions after that would have been oversighted at German WP immediately in the version history. I don't understand that it isn't done in Spanish WP at all. Can someone oversight the data now in the version history, please? --Geitost diskusjon 21:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You're completely right, but this information is publicly viewable on renaming and moving logs. --Vituzzu 21:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I say, the log may be public but you have to know the old username (her real name) to make the search. But this is not the point: Magister revealed this information gratuitously to all those that didn't knew it, knowing perfectly that this is something that could offence Mar. May the letter of the privacy policy sanction it or not, this is very wrong.
@Miss manzana: I'm not talking on the "Tablón de anuncios para los bibliotecarios", I tried to do it but you know they revert my message on that case. Community is now talking about that most disturbing case, their implications and repercussions on the "Café" (Village pump). Wikisilki 16:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with Wikisilki. It was absolutely unnecessary to mention my name again by Magister (as well as unnecessary his impolite, incivil and disrespectful words in the "Tablón de anuncios para los bibliotecarios"). And I'm also not allowed to discuss at the "Tablón de anuncios...". This is a es:WP-construct where only sysops have a right to write. Partially, inculpated may also talk at this site, but when they are quickly blocked... that was it! ) Nevertheless, the Tablón is better than how this sanctions are currently been agreed, worse: a not transparent procedure in a IRC channel, "accidentally" also led by Magister. Mar del Sur 19:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC). PS: My husband is still blocked (defintively barred), corresponding to Magister's desires, without any reasons nor argumentation based on the policies. As I see, shortly, a sysop allows him to write his own discussion page. Mar del Sur 21:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mar del Sur: You talk about sysops at eswiki as being "under Magister's orders", but I'll tell you that we sysops have independent minds and we can agree or disagree with his decissions freely. He's not our master. I'll tell you, also, that you're not blocked in eswiki because of "Magister's desires", but because your recent missbehaviour. There's more information in that TAB's thread that I have linked before. Regards, мιѕѕ мαηzαηα (let's talk) 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Miss Manzana: Sure, but I'm not talking about sysops. I'm talking about procedures led and mantained by Magister (such as the practice of deciding sanctions at the IRC-Channel, among a small group of sysops called his secres (secretaries). I don't know why I am repeatedly blocked, it seems completly arbitrary to me. We don't have definitions of abstract concepts such as "misbehavior" (even not "missbehaviour" ;) or "mardelsurbehaviour"): we have policies. And I have not read any explanation or clarification on what the alleged violations that I have committed would be But this is not the place where I like to talk about my individual case. I've mailed you regarding this issue on January 28, when you banned me on 24. Did't you receive my e-mail?

@Miss Manzana. If I may interrupt here. Mar is not saying that she is blocked because of Magister’s desires, she is mentioning the case of her husband who not only has been blocked but has been expelled and some users, including other sysops in, do not agree with the way this issue has been handled (underscoring your point that you sysops have independent minds). As to her misbehavior, well, that’s open to interpretation and I don't believe that this is the right place to discuss it.

Her husband has been expelled because of suspicions that it is a puppet-account used for voting purposes and, again, there is quite a lot of disagreement on that issue. Talking about these accounts, one of the opposers (AeroPisco) has mentioned that MM has admitted that he has an alternative account, that he does not specify which one and, therefore, this is in breach of policy and MM could be voting in elections using two different accounts. Here’s the link he mentioned: I have taken the liberty of translating that specific paragraph:

Sí creo artículos de forma regular, sin embargo debo señalar que no lo hago desde esta cuenta sino que mis aportaciones de contenido las hago desde una cuenta alternativa y no son exclusivas de matemáticas, para editar sin ser molestado por gentuza como usted.

Yes, I create articles regularly, however, I must point out that I don’t do it from this account but my contributions of content, not only on mathematics, are made from an alternative account so that I can edit without being bothered by hoi polloi (low-lifers) like you.

Just out of simple curiosity, if this is the case, that he does in fact have two different accounts; is the community aware of the name of that other account? Have we confirmed that it has not been used for voting or other purposes? Regards, --Maragm 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the same doubt. Can any sysop of answer it?--AeroPsico 20:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Do any of you two has legitimate basis for that suspicion (that I ever double voted)? Or is it bad-faith assuming. I must point that it's ironic that AeroPsico makes those groundless accusations when he has however, been blocked at least 4 sockpuppets used for promotional purposes (and unlike him, I can provide proof of my statements): [2]
So when he states on the confirm page "he might misuse his other account". Isn't that just bad-faith assuming? Should I not consider it a retaliation for me blocking your sockpuppets? es:Magister Mathematicae 21:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No se trata de mala o buena fe. Se trata de transparencia, yo soy un usuario autoconfirmado, pero tú eres sysop en 9 proyectos, burócrata en 6 proyectos, checkuser en 3 [3]. El problema es que aplicas políticas a los demás que sobre ti obvias, como por ejemplo bloquear por usar un títere. Y has usado los dos únicos bloqueos que tengo que tú me pusistes para desacreditar mis opiniones. Mi voto, como explico en la página no es una represalia, de hecho no hago mención a mi bloqueo. Pero ya que lo has usado como tú defensa para desacreditarme, lo voy a describir porque creo que es un buen ejemplo de acciones que haces a menudo como bibliotecario.
1-Bloqueastes mi cuenta alternativa, ya que decias que era promocional y NO lo era, ya que volví a reescribir los artículos con mi usuario.
2-Después me bloqueas a mí por evasión de bloqueo, SIN avisar, y SIN informar de la política infringida.
3-Más tarde, quise poner una reflexión en el tablón con otro usuario, de forma anónima, y tú me vuelves a bloquear 1 mes (cuando otro bibliotecario no lo hizo), sin avisar, y es entonces cuando me informas de la política aplicada, pero no me indicas el link donde está descrita . Para más detalles, explico mi defensa aquí. Por cierto, aclarar que no estoy bloqueado actualmente en ningún proyecto.
Uno de los errores que creo que cometes, es bloquear sin avisar previamente, y sin informar de las políticas infringidas. Quizá en el pasado tu trabajo como steward o bibliotecario/sysop fue mejor, pero creo que tantos cargos ahora te sobrepasan. En mi opinión, al tener tantos privilegios en tantos proyectos durante tantos años, ya sea por tu forma de ser, o por el exceso de trabajo, está haciendo que obvies políticas básicas, que aunque monótonas son imprescindibles, y están provocando que gente nueva y no tan nueva deje de editar por bloqueos injustificados, desmedidos, y muchos innecesarios. Y lo que es verdaderamente irónico, es que bloqueas a gente por usar títeres suponiendo mala fe, ya que por ejemplo podrían votar por duplicado, pero tú no haces público tu títere. Repito, se trata de transparencia. Si alguien puede traducirlo al inglés sería de agradecer.--AeroPsico 10:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Translation of AeroPsico's remarks:It’s not a question of good or bad faith. It’s about transparency. I am an auto-confirmed user but you are a sysop in 9 projects, a bureaucrat in 6, and a checkuser in 3. The problem is that you apply policies to other users that you ignore when it comes to yourself; for example, blocking for using a puppet account. You have used the only two blocks that I have, that you imposed, to discredit my opinions. My vote, as I explained in the page, is not retaliation, in fact, I do not refer to it. Nevertheless, since you have used it as a defense in order to discredit me, I’m going to mention it since it is a good example of your usual measures as an administrator. 1. You blocked my alternate account since you said it was promotional, which was NOT the case since I continued to rewrite the articles under my user name. 2. You blocked me then for evading the block, WITHOUT any warning or informing me what policy I had breached.3. Later, I wanted to make a remark on the AdminPage using another user, anonymously, and you blocked me again for one month (when another administrator did not follow suit), without any warning and it was then that you informed me of the policy you had applied without indicating, however, where that policy is described. For further details, I explain my defense here. By the way, I should make it clear that I am not currently blocked in any project.One of the mistakes that I think you make is that you block without giving any prior notice, without mentioning the breached policies. Perhaps your previous work as a steward or sysop was better, but I think that so many responsibilities are overwhelming you. In my opinion, having so many privileges in so many projects during so many years, either due to your way of being or because of excessive work is making you ignore basic policies which, albeit monotonous are essential. This is making new and not-so-new users stop editing due to unjustified, excessive, and often unnecessary blocks. What is truly ironic is that you block people, presuming bad faith, for using puppet accounts because, for example, they could vote twice, but you do not make your puppet account public. I repeat; it’s a question of transparency. (traslated by --Maragm 13:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC))
La política es clara: no se bloquea por tener títere sino por el abuso de los mismos. Y no puedes esgrimir ignorancia de las políticas, en tu bloqueo de diciembre puesto que ya habías sido apercibido e incluso sancionado por el mismo tema desde agosto. es:Magister Mathematicae 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sobre lo que no puedo esgrimir ignorancia, discrepo, pero no voy a volver a hablar sobre ese tema aquí ya que considero haber expuesto mi punto de vista contestándote en mi página de discusión de, y creo que desvía la atención de lo importante. Sobre la política, dice textualmente "se considera una práctica desaconsejable, puesto que puede ser empleada por un usuario malicioso para votar más de una vez en las consultas o elecciones acerca de políticas y otros asuntos. Si un usuario emplea habitualmente más de una cuenta (por ejemplo, porque utiliza una de ellas para un bot) debería indicar claramente cuál es su identidad principal y abstenerse de emplear las cuentas alternativas en votaciones.". Creo que no estás cumpliendo la política, deberías especificar tu cuenta alternativa que admites tener, en lugar de poner tantos reparos. Y este es uno de los motivos por los que no mereces mi confianza como wikipedista, ya sea steward o sysop. Y por último, la pregunta "Just out of simple curiosity, if this is the case, that he does in fact have two different accounts; is the community aware of the name of that other account? Have we confirmed that it has not been used for voting or other purposes? Regards,", creo que iba dirigida al resto de bibliotecarios/sysop de wikipedia, no a ti, Magister.--AeroPsico 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that, most of the votes (most, not all!) are totally unrelated to Magister's work as steward, just to local issues every community has, issues that should be handled locally and shouldn't even be regarded in this Steward Confirmation. -- Màñü飆¹5 talk [es] 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Quizá tengas razón, pero sus acciones en otros proyectos le definen como persona. Y si una persona genera desconfianza, da igual el cargo que se esté revalidando, la opinión sobre él seguirá siendo la misma.--AeroPsico 20:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Translation: His actions in other projects define him as a person. NO further comments. es:Magister Mathematicae 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Full translation of AeroPsico's comments: "His actions in other projects define him as a person. And, if a person generates mistrust, it doesn't matter what post is up for revalidation, the opinion about him remains the same". (translated by --Maragm 13:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC))
This talk page, Magister, is not about my block, the block you did to me, because I explain my defense here. Its about your confirmation like a steward. And, if you want to translate something, translate all please.--AeroPsico 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mis motivos para votar en contra[edit]

  1. En Wikipedia en español un bibliotecario de la misma acaba de plantear la duda razonable de que Magister Mathematicae ha participado, al menos una vez, en el bloqueo irregular de un wikipedista (ver).
  2. Magister Mathematicae, desde hace años, participa en páginas externas en las que los wikipedistas parecen sentir gran placer en insultar o burlarse de otros wikipedistas sin que estos últimos estén presentes.
  3. Magister Mathematicae suele usar su blog, páginas de twitter, etc., para mofarse de otros wikipedistas o lanzar insidias contra ellos.
  4. Pierde los nervios con facilidad. Ha realizado insultos gravísimos en páginas de Wikipedia.
  5. Difunde información personal de otros wikipedistas sin su consentimiento o a pesar de su oposición expresa.
  6. Adicionalmente, y esto ya es una opinión mía, entiendo que un usuario que ha realizado activismo contra las donaciones a la Fundación Wikimedia no debería ser steward.

Lo siento, pero no merece mi confianza. Ferbr1 15:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC) PD) si alguien desea traducir mi mensaje al inglés que se sienta libre de hacerlo.

Ok, Febr1, I'll oblige and roughly translate your remarks without including the links.

  1. One of the sysops has just mentioned that there is some reasonable doubt about Magister's participation in the irregular blockage of a wiki user on at least one occasion.
  2. For years, Magister has been participating in external pages where wiki members seem to feel great pleasure in insulting or putting down other users in their absence.
  3. MM tends to use his blog, twitter pagers, etc. to make fun of other users and to launch attacks.
  4. He easily loses his patience and has gravely insulted others in wiki pages.
  5. He disseminates personal info on other users without their consent or despite their express opposition.
  6. In addition, and this is my opinion, I believe that he has been active encouraging others not to contribute to the Foundation and, accordingly, he should not be a steward

I'm sorry, but he does not deserve my trust. End of translation. --Maragm 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some replies[edit]

Just some precision. It's easy to mention a lot of things and not providing proof. And mentioning others and not providing enough context. The legitimacy of such tactics, I won't talk deep here.

On local issues[edit]

I must point that above paragraphs are based on several falsehoods and there fore the conclusions following are invalid.

I must point that AeroPsico was blocked at least 4 promotional sock.puppets (which is indeed breach of policy) but that is not my case. And yes it's true that I've admitted openly using an alternate account for editing articles. HOWEVER it is false (as maragm and Aeropsico say) that this is a eswiki breach of policy. What policy says is that you're allowed to use alternate accounts as long as you don't misuse them. Policy recognizes that there are good reasons for it and it encourages people to use templates for linking them although it makes clear it's not mandatory.
AeroPsico argues "he *might* misuse his other account" . I point that I've never done it (unlike him, which was proven). Also point that the username is not secret (at least a dozen sysops know it) but certainly not openly disclosed it so should I abuse it, many users would instantly denounce me. And if anyone has a legitimate suspicion that I ever did, he should present it for local community to decide.
So, I ask Margam to stop presenting false facts' that I'm violating some sort of policy (or provide proof otherwise).

ALSO I'd like to point that this confirmation is being used by several users to deal with local issues. I must point as examples 1) that I've never hidden the fact that I use an alternate account for editing eswiki (that's why the link it's up there) 2) the "hoi polloi" thing she links it's a group of anons that during the previous weeks engaged on vandalizing several articles (yet she fails to mention this). 3) For example user poco a poco mentions "I don't trust him as a sysop" yet he, instead of going the proper channels to locally deal with that (we have a reconfirmation procedure for sysops) he uses the steward confirmation as a sort of punishment ("you need to be put a stop", yet saying he's got nothing personal against me) . So that's the reason I believe this is being misused, not as a review of my steward work, but as a review of my sysop work.

Also, while we're on clarifying misrepresentations: I must point that I didn't block the purported "husband account". I opened a thread on the sysop borad (twice) mentioning an issue and I asked third-party sysops to weigh in the matter and take a decision (either for block or either to clear it) since matter was in a sort of limbo, and I only opened since the purported "wife account" returned after a block and her first edits I considered unnecesarily hostile to me (which I argued on the post). I have all the right to present a case for review on the sysop board if I feel it justified (as any other user does), but opening a case doesn't mean I'm a priori right, nor it's a punishable offense. I was just exercising my right to present a case and let others decide.

So, any suggestion that the account is blocked because I wanted it blocked, is false.

Also it's being claimed that I decide "on IRC" administrative actions. This is plain false and I demand proof or diff or log that I preformed some administrative action arguing "it was decided on IRC". All I do, I justify it on wiki presenting my arguments on wiki.

Finally: to all those that belive I'm a bad eswiki sysop, please open a confirmation procedure for me on wiki. I have no problem submitting to it, as I've always openly stated that whatever community decides, I will abide to it.

On global matters[edit]

Let me also present some precedent: steward confirmation procedures are not votings on local issues but reviews of use of steward tools. In the past, we have even re-confirmed steward that got indefinitely-blocked on his local wiki and whose users mass-posted on the confirmation, because in meta we are very careful not to muddle issues and keep an eye on the objectives: determining if I made good use of my steward tools or not (use of other tools should be discussed on the proper spaces for that). If I made good use, to retain them another year, if I misused it, to lose them.

I only mention so everyone involved knows the objective and philosphy of confirmation (and so, not hurt feelings at the end of it): to decide if the user (in this case me) has made a misuse of the tools he was given for a year. Yet, it saddens me that people are not commenting on what they're being asked to comment and instead use this page as a vent for local issues.

So, I invite all those having problems or grudges about my local sysop work to please, please, open me a sysop confirmation page. I'd be thankful. And I also request that all the effort spent reviewing my local work be also spent reviewing my steward work. I really need that review, it makes me a better steward. Please scrutinize my steward actions thoroughly (also keep scrutinizing my sysop work, it also makes me a better sysop, and even better: channel that effort to the right places). es:Magister Mathematicae 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AeroPsico argues "he *might* misuse his other account" . I point that I've never done it (unlike him, which was proven). Also point that the username is not secret (at least a dozen sysops know it) but certainly not openly disclosed it so should I abuse it, many users would instantly denounce me.
So a dozen sysops (I assume friends) know that other identity. Come on!
We have an official policy that says: Si un usuario emplea habitualmente más de una cuenta (por ejemplo, porque utiliza una de ellas para un bot) debería indicar claramente cuál es su identidad principal y abstenerse de emplear las cuentas alternativas en votaciones. Translation: "If a user habitually uses more than one account, he should clearly indicate which is his main identity and avoid using it for voting." --Billyrobshaw (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


This vote is made by the same person that this, see here and I suspect that a lot of votes here are made by only one person. Esteban (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

El voto de loygra ha sido ejecutado por MM, para desligitimar el resto de votos en contra. Hizo lo mismo con la RECAB de Ecemaml, para poder eliminar votos. Por cierto, en un blog ha dejado mensajes anónimos, muy probablemente suyos, con amenazas a los que han votado en contra. La amenaza consistía en publicar en un sitio o blog de internet información privada de estos usuarios. Amenaza, por otra parte, muy propia de MM. -- 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Centroamericano is sure a sockpuppet of MM. -- 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop with the nonsense. Loygra and the others are sockpuppets of Belibaste (eswiki banned user), and I've requested a checkuser to certify it. You are lying.

Also with the claims that I threat users anonimously (don't bother to give links, it's easier to libel without proof), but you contradict yourself (they're anonymous, yet they're from Magister).

Your third lie: centroamericano is a sockpuppet of mine. There's a checkuser page where you can ask for it to be proven. es:Magister Mathematicae 07:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked as it was Thor8 evading block. es:Magister Mathematicae 16:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Discussion has ended some hours ago. Is pointless to go on over there.
Btw the comments over there cleary shows it was a wiki edited by the whole arbcom, not a copy-paste leak. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)