I have requested an injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Workshop banning all listed parties from editing, due to an ongoing sterile edit war and ownership issues that are preventing uninvolved outside editors from trying to clean up the article. (Protection would just lock it in one of two bad states.) Also, can you nudge the rest of the arbitrators on the Midnight Syndicate injunction? That article is also fully protected due to edit warring by the parties, preventing interested uninvolved editors (if there are any) from working on it. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If only the other arbitrators were that quick to respond to injunctions and motions! Thatcher131 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On Waldorf/Proposed decision, you opposed one of your own principles. Thatcher131 20:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you removed, using a bot, links to several videos which nicely illustrate the article. I see no basis for their removal. Fred Bauder 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three videos are produced by ArtNetwork Productions - this appears to be a commerical company [1] and the copyright of the videos appears to belong to them. Are they not copyvios if we link to them via youtube? I didn't notice that the uploader to youtube has the same name as the production company so arguably they have released the content to the web - but then the anonymity of the internet makes it hard to know if this is correct. On reflection I may have been over hasty deleting them but then its a judgement call. On reviewing the last video, I was clearly wrong. Thank you for correcting my mistake. --Spartaz 06:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you ever get a response to your email? --Spartaz 09:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Wikipedia well and am always putting my foot in my mouth. But I want to ask you a question, since I am very anxious. I noticed that you signed as arbitrator in the Starwood/Ace et al links arbitration case. Also you voted to keep in AFD the Jeff Rosenbaum article, the article at the center of the dispute in the Starwood mediation case and central also in the arbitration. This is confusing to me. Perhaps you could help me to understand. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for answering and explaining! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I see that Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back to moving dozens of articles without going through RM. May I please request enforcement of an injunction to get this behavior to stop, at least for the duration of the ArbCom case? Thanks, --Elonka 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a heads-up, Admin Radiant seems to be actively encouraging Yaksha to proceed [2]. --Elonka 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not encouraging anything, I'm simply pointing out that the existence of an arbitration case is no grounds for stopping various kinds of wikiactivity while it's ongoing. I should also note that none of the remaining moves are in fact controversial. Indeed, the Lost episodes, where Elonka's dispute originates, have already been moved by consensus. It is shown in the evidence to the Arb case that her claims of an earlier consensus regarding television episode names have been shown to be incorrect. (Radiant) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiant, how exactly are you claiming that these moves are not controversial? Yaksha has received requests from multiple editors to stop moving pages, including Arbitration clerk Thatcher131. I have requested an injunction, and there is an open ArbCom case about the matter. Further, the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes state a different naming convention than what Yaksha is moving pages to. If all of those are not evidence of controversy, what is? --Elonka 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not controversial because whenever a Requested Move was made on any of these items, it had a strong consensus in favor of Yaksha's naming. A vocal minority disagreeing with consensus is not a controversy. (Radiant) 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the guy who can't assume good faith, but since the injunction was passed blocking the parties from editing Brahma Kumaris, there is a new single purpose account, Amasintay (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I'd like to suggest a quick peek may be in order just in case. Thatcher131 13:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification here would be appreciated, since there are two admins (myself and Pjacobi) interpreting the decision in opposite ways. Thatcher131 22:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed on User_talk:Dmcdevit#Sorry. I would appreciate your opinion, as usual. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you, or some other admin(s), to comment on the year-long extension of nobs01's block, discussed here: User talk:Dmcdevit#Your block of User:nobs01. I really think this was an unjust decision on Dmcdevit's part. KarlBunker 11:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and off the IRC channel.
Kelly is still active on the IRC, both the open channel and (last I was aware) the pseudo-admin channel. Again, not important really; but either you weren't specfic enough in what you meant, or have information more than a few hours old, or were mistaken. I'll get back in my box, now.
brenneman 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurg. I had to read that three more times before I got that (I think) you meant the ArbCom IRC channel? *shakes head* I think I'll go edit some articles or something, this is making me dizzy. - brenneman 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Fred, for your help on the WP:RS Talk page. I was really having trouble understanding the points about primary sources. Your explanation helped it clear. Next week we'll begin dispute procedures to try to address the problematic use of primary sources in the article on Transcendental Meditation.
I was surprised you found the Roark letter. : ) I noted that he described himself as being dean of faculty and head of the physics department 1975-1980. Neither is true.
Regarding Sethie's comments in that thread on the WP:RS Talk page: the JAMA article had nothing to do with research on Transcendental Meditation. It made no allegations of research fraud. It discussed misleading practices relating to the marketing of Ayur-Veda and herbal products. I think it made some good points. (JAMA and the author of the article were sued for $194 million, and the suit was settled out of court.) TimidGuy 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? [3] I've spoken of you in rather laudatory terms on several occasions and have long thought that you are an important part of the Arbitration Committee. I often disagree with you, but dislike you? No, I would not say that. If you ever happen to find yourself in Chicagoland, please stop in for a drink. We have a fully stocked bar. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't read the instructions!
Nina Odell 11:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)aka NinaEliza[reply]
- Well dang it, I still think you're incredibly hard-working, so there:).Nina Odell 16:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred,
I do not know how this arbitration process works. Obviously it has been spun into an entirely different orbit from the one I originally sought to address matters within. I hoped to keep it free from the levelling of personal attacks, and my self from having to go through the effort of compiling a case on the basis of attacks made against me. But as they have not stopped I must defend myself. From my point of view, from the very beginning, the first offense was not mine and I have been defending myself.
As it was key to the acceptance of the arbitration, can I therefore ask you to include the use of a secondary and tertiary identity by Riveros11 in the Proposed findings of fact as it is very clear that I was deliberately locked and blocked from editing through this strategy in order that his edit would take precedence.
Thanks. 195.82.106.244 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably have it on your watchlist at the moment, but in case you don't, I draw your attention to Talk:Rachel Marsden#Sources. I've reviewed all of the three prior AFD discussions. None of them have actually demonstrated with citations of articles about Marsden (as opposed to citations of articles by Marsden) that this person satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. I'm pressing hard for editors to cite some actual sources. Uncle G 07:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question: [4] seems to be a little ambiguous - does any user mean any party to this request, or every single user on Wikipedia? Further to this, and to potentially the answer to my question, does violates the consensus decision in this matter mean naming conventions of the disputed articles, or any articles in particular?
|
Violates the consensus decision in this matter means disputed articles related to the ArbCom request |
Violates the consensus decision in this matter means any article naming under dispute
|
| Any user means parties to the arbitration |
Deals with situation concisely, however means wikilawyering possible regarding what articles are "related to the arbitration" |
Means that the parties are prohibited from violating concensus in relation to moves on any article; may be too broad for some
|
| Any user means every user on Wikipedia |
Prevents sockpuppets etc. because cases are defined, however suffers same problem as in the cell directly above |
Extremely broad, may mean biting the newbies, ridiculous for every user on Wikipedia to be subject to the ArbCom remedy/enforcement
|
Maybe I've gone off on a tagent here, and missed the implied meaning of this, but I'm confused at present. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred,
I'm not sure I understand why you sugggest that Ellis' most recent IP is a third-party. Isn't it more likely that some of the edits of 209.217.79.235 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) are simply non-malicious? (I may not have understood what is going on here.) Bucketsofg 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred, I blocked the IP for 24 hours anon-only. Will this be a problem? (As far as I know, Ellis can change IPs pretty much at will, maybe the good edits were when the IP belonged to someone else? Thatcher131 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned this at Arbitration enforcement, here, but the admins decided not to investigate.
- I included all the necessarily diffs, and it seems to be a simply matter to establish possible contravention of policy, and irregularities in a particular AfD. --Iantresman 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Now you support to have me banned for one year. For what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A block for that long seems extreme, unless there was vandalism or personal attacks involved. Albeit I was not involved in this matter at all. However, in most of my observations of User:Andries on talk pages and articles, he has comported himself in a manner, well, at least more polite than myself usualy on contentious articles, I hope that is saying something. Smeelgova 05:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Fred Bauder's stated issue with my behavior seems to be activism (which I deny) in violation of WP:NOT, and repeated failure of the dispute resolution process (which I admit). The issue is not something uncomplicated and clear, like personal attacks, vandalism, removal of relevant sourced contents, original research, edit warring without trying dispute resolution, or something like that. If it were that simple then, I guess, it would have not have come to a second arbitration case. Nevertheless, I hope that Fred Bauder or another arbitration committee member who supports the ban for one year can give examples of my behavior that they consider unacceptable, because now their objections to my behavior are a mystery for me. May be it is just that they have grown tired of this tedious conflict on the Sathya Sai Baba article without any end in sight. I have some understanding for this, but I would rather be told about it. Or may be someone sent an e-mail about me. Andries 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) amended 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred. The meaning of Principle 7 of the Kosovo arbitration, proposed by you, has been the object of looooong discussion. It would be great if you could add a short comment on it "here", for I hope that a few words by you could save us another month of endless talk and edit warring over "According to the news media it is widely expected that the talks will lead to some form of independence", "Most international observers believe these negotiations will lead to some form of independence" or its equivalents... *sigh* - Thanks already :-) Best regards, Evv 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to leave me any reply regarding this message, please do it here. I have this page on my watch list. - Evv 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied at Talk:Kosovo Status Process.
- Hi Fred. Here's our friend HGilbert controlling the Waldorf article content again. If nobody else is allowed to edit the article, this will never get cleaned up. As you remember, he is a Waldorf teacher and has a COI here. Pete K 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Our friend Professor Marginalia is interested in naming each of the members known to her that she believes are on the board of PLANS. This adds nothing to the article and is part of a vendetta that this particular editor participates in. As one of five principals of Americans for Waldorf education she has helped promote a very vile perception of PLANS even using language that describes PLANS as a "hate group" here. That this person is able to defame an organization to this degree on their (5-person) website and then post the names of persons they believe are board members is in incredibly poor taste - especially since the addition of these names, again, adds nothing to the article. Wikipedia, in my view, should not be a place where people can carry out vendettas. It would be helpful if you found some time to look at this issue. Also, is there a page that the arbitrators are watching for this sort of thing? I hate to bother you each time something like this happens. Thanks! Pete K 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The members of the board of PLANS were added to the article on 31 Oct. 2006 by now former board member Diana W of the group. Who the editor Professor Marginalia is has - as far as I'm aware of - not been told at Wikipedia by the editor, but is an unverified assumption by Pete K. Thebee 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter AT ALL who introduced the information (unless you believe everyone here has to pick a team) - the question is whether it is appropriate or needed. That YOU are here defending it, and we know who YOU are is plain enough - and we know that you are equally responsible for the "hate" language at the AWE site and also tried to introduce it in Wikipedia several times. Just because Professor Marginalia chooses to use a nom-de-plume (in order to disguise an obvious bias), doesn't mean those of us who have dealt with her for years don't know who she is. The question, however, remains - whether or not the naming of persons is necessary or appropriate. Pete K 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On:
- "Our friend Professor Marginalia is interested in naming each of the members known to her that she believes are on the board of PLANS."
- It has little to do with belief. They are listed at the site of the group.
- On:
- "the question is whether it is appropriate or needed."
- It was added by Diana W as former member of the board, at a time when the article was not that very much different from what it is now. She seems to have thought it was appropriate and important to name them. According to Professor Marginalia the reason for continuing to name them is that the officers are referred to throughout article. Just curious: What is the reason for getting upset about it specifically now, after it has been in the article for more than two months? Regards, Thebee 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for "getting upset" is the dishonset claims made by you about the nature of PLANS, not just on your own websites, but here at Wikipedia in the very article. You call a PLANS a "hate group" (something you cannot support AT ALL) and then identify its members by name? That's not what Wikipedia is for, my friend... in fact as I have said many times, it should get you banned completely. We don't need to mention anyone in the article other than Ms. Snell and Mr. Dugan. I've asked Fred for a ruling here and I would appreciate it if you would let him rule on this. Thanks. Pete K 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article (PLANS) says nothing about "hate group". And your answer does not answer the question: Why get upset specifically now about the naming of the members of the board of the group, added by a former member of the board to the article two months ago? Regards, Thebee 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be brief as I really don't believe this warrants arguing over. I do not have the time it would take to reconstruct why I added PLANS board member names to that article at one point. I believe I was trying to counter the wide perception (due mainly to mailing list activity) that "PLANS is Dan Dugan." PLANS is a bunch more people. (In fact, their web site listing isn't even accurate at the moment, it needs updating.) I can't really recall just what I was thinking. This may have been happening when thebee was busy inserting slander into the "Dan Dugan" article about Dan. (Copious irrelevant, vendetta-style material on Dan - completely unrelated to his Waldorf activities, just personal "dirt" - had been added and was later removed after it was vigorously opposed.) I agree, overall, with Pete that it's a huge problem that wikipedia allows defamation of individuals in the manner that thebee has repeatedly attempted. There's been never a word about his "hate group" rhetoric and its potential legal ramifications. It's essentially a criminal accusation. (Now he notes disingenuously that the article does not refer to PLANS as a "hate group"; um, no, it doesn't, does it? but he doesn't mention that that's only because he lost his campaign to keep that language, and nothing, obviously, stops him or his chums from re-inserting this or other slander when he thinks we're not looking.) But I don't really think it's a big deal if board member names stay or go. It would be nice if it was accurate, but it's not that big a deal.
As often, I ruefully conclude that while it's a shame the article as written is so stupidly biased and polemical, another part of me thinks, "So what?" because ironically it makes them look far worse than they apparently realize, to carry on like this in public. It may not be worth wasting the arbitrators' time, risking getting ourselves banned too, and anyway, the more crap like this they try, the more the article becomes self-evidently a huge vendetta; in a sick way, it's almost better when it reads openly as bullshit than when it reads *better* but not quite right, if you KWIM. Pete, why not just let them have the names.DianaW 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thebee wrote: "Who the editor Professor Marginalia is has - as far as I'm aware of - not been told at Wikipedia by the editor, but is an unverified assumption by Pete K." Again trying to be brief, but this whole issue is just a joke, and it makes wikipedia a joke when it is not addressed. We're caught in the dilemma that it's a big web site, supposedly the fourteenth largest in existence? and lots of people read it, and it matters what it says on wikipedia, but wikipedia lacks credibility in this basic sense when it allows these shenanigans. It's important to "Professor Marginalia" that individuals, associated with what her organization dubs a "hate group," have their names in the wikipedia article on this group. This makes them searchable, googlable, it pinpoints them in real life. It has potential real-life effects. But there's no requirement that Professor Marginalia tell us who she is, or what she represents? That's called cowardice and lack of integrity. Pete and I are are here writing under our own names, and discussing whether board members at PLANS need to be named? This makes it really not worth 5 minutes of anyone's time. It doesn't matter, to me, whether Professor Marginalia has "confirmed" or verified who she - the issue TO ME is that we do know who she is, and that she isn't being honest here. That's what I call a bunch of bullshit.DianaW 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, let's refrain from saying things like, "You did that two months ago," when 5 or 6 weeks of that 2 months was an arbitration, during which it didn't make sense to do much to these articles. Also two major holidays intervened, not to mention personal life, and mine's kinda busy. Obviously, many things have been in these articles for months that neither side is pleased with. Everyone is picking their battles. Let's not argue based on either who put something somewhere or when.DianaW 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As Fred is not answering, I'm inclined to remove the names (again) and see where this goes. Again, they add nothing to the article and if the AWE group insists on naming names, I'll be happy to start an article about Waldorf fanatics and their internet tactics and start naming names too. Pete K 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Next Waldorf Woe... can we please get a ruling about TheBee continually trying to direct readers to his own original research (and defamatory) websites? I've started deleting his references where they occur because they are not only inappropate, they represent advertising and promotion of Waldorf. When TheBee links to these, it is no different than spamming these pages with advertisements for Waldorf education. I think the intention is to try to get away from using Wikipedia as a Waldorf brochure. Unless I am directed not to do so, I'll keep removing TheBee's spam as I encounter it. Pete K 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What Pete K refers to is that he three times (so far) 1, 2, 3 has deleted links by me to research on or related to Waldorf education in a one month old posting in an answer to a question by someone. In a comment, Pete K tells that he will go through all discussions related to the Waldorf and related articles - also the archived discussions - and delete all links in them to the site of Waldorf Answers.
- Pete K also has deleted a link in one posting by me in one discussion to an academic paper I wrote on the concept of Science as part of studies of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Gothenburg some 25 years ago, that I publish at my site. I gave the link as a contribution to a discussion at the Talks page about whether and if yes, in what sense Anthroposophy can be considered to be an expression of s scientific striving in a similar sense as what has developed as Natural Science the last centuries. The paper describes this in an affirmative sense, and my professor at the time, a Håkan Törnebohm, one of the main founders of the subject of Philosophy of Science as an academic subject in Sweden, gave the paper "excellent" marks.
- From a posting by me in the same Waldorf Talks page discussion - not Wikipedia article - Pete K also has deleted a linked reference to a discussion of how Science is approached in Waldorf education on three points, as a contribution to an understanding of the issue.
- The deletion of the the links from two one month old postings in the discussion - to me - seems to lack support in the Arbitration and constitute vandalism and repeated pure personal harassment. Thebee 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. I hope to get permission to delete ALL instances where you have linked to your own websites. It isn't allowed. Pete K 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I:
- "The deletion of the the links from two one month old postings in the discussion - to me - seems to lack support in the Arbitration and constitute vandalism and repeated pure personal harassment."
- Pete K:
- "Yep. I hope to get permission to delete ALL instances where you have linked to your own websites."
- Linking to sites you've been involved in is prohibited in Wikipedia articles, not for discussions of the articles at Talks pages, penetrating the issues related to the articles and how to describe them. Thebee 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - but you're abusing this to a great degree - SPAMMING the talk pages with your POV, OR and defamatory material. I would like a ruling. If you are permitted to do this - I'm happy to follow you around and post up links to sites that refute what you claim in your OR. No problem - I've got lots of time and patience - and it gives me an opportunity to present a lot of material that isn't appropriate for the articles. I think we'll be seeing every anonymous letter from the PLANS page up here eventually - and discussions about the abusive Waldorf teacher who duct-taped children to their chairs. It's completely up to you how we approach this. Pete K 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you write tells that if you're not allowed to go through all existing Talks pages related to Waldorf education so far and delete all links you find to Waldorf Answers in postings, you will wage a war on them instead by following me around and every time I post a link to Waldorf Answers, you will post "a lot of material that isn't appropriate for the articles". Would that not violate the WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a battleground) policy, that you during the Arbitration regarding Waldorf related articles a month ago, 15 Dec. 2006, stated that you support? It seems to me that it also would violate the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. Thebee 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. If you are allowed to insert non-approved research here, I'll be doing the same. I follow you around anyway as I'm always keeping an eye on your edits to these articles (no big surprise to anyone, right? - And you do the same to me.) and if you're free to add links to your stuff, I'm free to add stuff links to my stuff - and I will. It's disrupting Wikipedia when YOU add a lot of links to your own pontifications - and that's EXACTLY the point and what I'm trying to get a ruling on. Pete K 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred,
I've left a checkuser request relating to the Brahma Kumaris arbitration case [5]. I would be greatful if you, or another suitable arbitrator, could attend to it or comment on it.
Thanks & regards. Bksimonb 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break. :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My additional evidence would mostly be related to user conduct - incivility, harassment, and personal attacks, against both me and other editors. I noticed that on the proposed decision page you commented that there had been insufficient evidence of some of these [6][7][8]. I feel that your finding was simply because I was not yet finished presenting my evidence. Now that I am back, with your permission, I would like to finish presenting my case. --Elonka 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays! It's a been a really tough winter so far, with many power outages[9]. I'm getting caught up now though, and have been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.
- For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it. :)
- Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Elonka 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I restated some stuff I wrote in an (member's advocacy) email last evening to user:Zeraeph about unintended consequences, too narrow a focus, and something which seems to me to be an unheralded frequent cause of friction, acts which hurry others itself being a form of incivility, and such. Feel free to revert and mercilessly edit. But these points seemed to fit in with this. Good essay. Happy New Year // FrankB 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that all involved in the case are forced to use Requested moves before doing controversial moves. Is this a decent suggestion?? --SunStar Nettalk 18:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when there is an established naming convention established by consensus. Fred Bauder 18:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my idea was bad. But is putting some/all of the participants on probation a remedy?? --SunStar Nettalk 23:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the kindness you offered to Chris is me with a barnstar. That barnstar might soothe that editors feelings about Wikipedia. Now I'm returning your kindness by giving you Ed's Kindness Award.
*Ed spins the wheel of random food...and Fred Bauder gets bread!*
|
This Wikipedian has received the Kindness Award from Ed for going the extra mile to be kind to another person. Kindness is important so that there may be an improved sense of community here on Wikipedia. As a reward, I offer this user a random piece of food. (I will never give the same food item out twice, so don't be jealous.) Thanks again! --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I love stollen! Thanks so much!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 15:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Callum richards, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Chris 73 | Talk 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siobhan Hansa has a very rude greeting on their user page and talk page. I Have received a complaint from a new user whose contributions were reverted by this user, and they visited the talk page to discuss why, only to find the comments in question. In my opinion this is a premeditated 'biting of the newbies'. Is there a proper facility to report this within wikipedia?
Jerry lavoie 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this user seems to have two monikers SiobhanHansa (talk · contribs · count)
- Jerry lavoie 00:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd say so, but this is an excessive case. A user who is simply mistaken or has a different understanding is one thing; a user who intentionally and repeatedly makes claims known and proven to be false in an attempt to disparage other users or to get them blocked is a different matter entirely. The point is that unless the falsehood is made explicit, there is nothing to stop her from persisting in the same behavior. See the RFAr page for details. >Radiant< 09:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
