AdHoc, I'd be grateful for your comments here [1], which appears to be the appropriate appeal route according to my reading of the rules. Thank you. OffTheFence (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked User:66.240.31.2 despite the fact that there was no recent warning mentioning a block, and no vandalism after a warning. There was no evidence that this user was going to continue vandalizing at all, and as far as I could tell they had stopped. Did I miss something? Malinaccier (talk)13:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malinaccier, the IP address has made nearly 20 edits this year all, of them vandalism, and there was vandalism within half an hour of my block. Also, the account had been previously blocked, and the block notice explained the connection between vandalism and blocking. Since the previous block, the account had vandalized 4 more times. Addhoc (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this was the only vandalism in 3 days. How would the block help stop vandalism occuring sporadically over long periods of time?
Let's just calm down about this: I'm not going to take it to WP:AN or ask you to go through recall or something. It's just a simple case of "I don't agree with the block, so I'm contacting you about it." Malinaccier (talk)14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adhoc...greetings to you. You chose to impose a 7-day ban from articles on homeopathy due to my editing of Arsenicum album. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider because I have simply sought to delete a sentence that no one has yet to verify or substantiate. I personally thought that I was being very reasonable. The sentence in question is: "However most of the studies described by the authors as "high quality" were neither randomized nor blinded." As I wrote, I have no problem with this sentence if someone can tell me how this statement is substantiated. If you review my edits here, THAT was the issue...and to be honest, I am not only in the right, I am following wiki-rules. That said, I am always willing and able to learn: what did I do wrong? I will file an appeal shortly, but I will give you a little time to re-look at my edits (we all sometimes write a bit too fast, and we all make some rush assessments, until a friend asks you/me/others to slow down, take a breath, and re-read an entry or two. DanaUllmanTalk13:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DanaUllman, your problem is that you don't establish consensus on the talk page before editing articles. Even in your above statement, you talk about being 'in the right', instead of in terms of consensus. The warnings that Jehochman and I have given you relate to this problem. The concept of being bold isn't to excuse this form of disruptive conduct. Addhoc (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the probation include talk pages, such as the water memory talk page, which is part of the probation? I ask as Dana has been involved in editing there after he commented above (so is aware of the ban), and seemed to imply that he will stonewall/editwar (thinly veiled as a warning to others not to do this). Some of his other conduct recently, particularly in regard to Baegis, seems slightly unbecoming of a wikipedian.>>Partyoffive (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)<<[reply]
Talk pages too?!? Addhoc, you acknowledged that I had a "low level edit war" at Arsenicum album, and even though I had requested that someone/anyone provide verification for a fact, you have deemed that only I should be punished. I am confused by this punishment and by your inclusion of Talk pages. I will ask for this action to be reviewed. DanaUllmanTalk17:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addhoc, what are the implications here? Can or should you be disciplining me when you are editing here? I'm still wondering how my "low level edit warring" deserved a 7-day suspension from editing articles and even from participating on Talk pages in the subject of homeopathy DanaUllmanTalk19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Addhoc,
As an admin involved on content disputes regarding both Gush Shalom, Daniel Pipes and possibly others, I can't follow why you'd consider yourself uninvolved and appropriate to impose sanctions on solely on your belief that I am disruptive - and without even waiting for me to post my full response to the accusations.
I request you review Arbcom notes; and that you re-open the AE case and retract your administrative descision - allowing uninvolved admins to decide whatever sanctions are there to impose.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arcom final decisions -- here -- make it clear that,
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
despite my note to you that "I apologize for aggressive behavior"..."If there is any comment that catches your attention, I am interested in retracting it and apologizing." you've repeated your initial resolve that I'm disruptive and should be topic banned for one week.
administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith ... allow responsible contributors (I've recently contributed to 3 featured content) maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia ... collaborative editing environment.
Article environment was anything but collaborative and while I expressed my disdain -- from how editors are disregarding the Israeli perspective -- poorly, I've quickly (1.5 hours) made the attempt to put the conversation back on track. I believe I've not been given a fair chance to present my case.
'Uninvolved administrators' - For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.
Uninvolved does not mean "currently" but rather 'previously' and based on your 'currently' reply, it is implicated that you are indeed not 100% uninvolved as is the requirement.
I'm having hard time following why you deemed my attempt to scale back as a clear indication that your initial belief that a ban is in order as this is, per my understanding, not in accordance with points (1) and (2). Also, based on some of your editing history and "current" response, it would seem that you've missed the implication of point (3) and should not have taken administrative steps on this AE post.
I can't quite understand where noting that I need time to collect evidence about other editors and that I'm willing to retract anything that might be considered offensive is to be deemed "one week topic ban", certainly that I'm an established editor with no soapboxing history.
Thanks for the clarification about the definition of uninvolved. I confirm that I haven't previously participated in any content disputes on articles in this area of conflict. Yes, I've added some citations to the Gush Shalom article, but that isn't participating in a content dispute. Otherwise, I accept that you have produced featured content, however most of this isn't affected by the 7 day ban. Addhoc (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Itzse
Hi Addhoc; I feel that by banning Jaakobou, you have unintentionally handed a victory to his opposing counterparts who are no less guilty of everything they are accusing him of. The only difference, is that some of them are more refined in how they attack; plus most editors who share his view have been slowly pushed aside one by one or they left on their own volition in exasperation, and he was left alone to fight for what he considers is right and fair.
What we are left at this point, is that there are no editors who have the time or the will anymore to fight, so that his/their POV shouldn't be totally expunged from Wikipedia, which in good faith I say, is the desire of some who oppose him, and am sad to say that for the most part, they have achieved it.
The route Wikipedia is heading is in my opinion doomed; and singling him out is not helpful in getting an unbiased Encyclopedia.
I must assume that you haven't followed these pages for the last year; but as a participant I must tell you that I'm sick to my stomach; but still, I just don't have the time needed to do what is right.
Hi Itzse, thanks for your comments, however, if the first editor I sanctioned was pro-Palestinian, I would probably have received a similar message from a different editor. I agree with some of your comments, but don't consider this to be a reason to allow poor talk page conduct from either side. Addhoc (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that poor talk is wrong, and should be admonished; but it always has to be weighed in context. Knowing all the players, I must tell you that in this context, including the record of his adversaries; the tactics employed against him, and where there is a mentor in place, and in the midst of a debate where his presence is needed (of course only to one side); his missing in action can have a detrimental effect on the subject at hand (his opponents will be claiming consensus and what not, to lock in their gains); besides it sets the wrong tone that mischief gets rewarded.
As to what you say, that if it would have been the other way around, you would probably have received a similar message from a different editor; on first thought you are probably right; but after looking closer you will see that while the pro-Jewish editors (the established ones) bend over backwards to appease the opposing views; even going as far as admonishing me for sticking to the truth and neutrality at all costs; you do not have similar editors with a pro-Arab view who are willing to compromise half way; if they are willing to compromise somewhat for the time being they are praised to the hilt (by those that share my views); reserving their venom on editors like me who are barely tolerated for daring to demand Wikipedia's full adherence to neutrality.
Enough of me; I just couldn't sit idle and see one injustice after another being inflicted; and its perpetrators going Scott free. I would hope that you will hear from others too; but unfortunately it seems that I'm the only one left who doesn't give a hoot to what others think of me, and has the wherewithal to defend myself when needed. Thanks again for listening. Itzse (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for diving in as well on your talk page, but I thought I should quickly flag up Tiamut's comment here (the second paragraph), and I would also add that I have no particular desire, or the time, to edit on I-P issues much for a while. There was no intention here on my part (or anyone else's as far as I know) to have an editor bundled out and then dive in to make a bunch of POV edits while their back was turned. I pushed for something (not necessarily a ban, I would add) to be done about Jaakobou's conduct because I felt he had overstepped the mark in a big way twice in the space of less than a week, in situations involving the same (female) editor. Nor overall btw do I think it helpful to view I-P pages in terms of two "sides" or "appeasement": there is a lot of nuance in the positions expressed and attitudes adopted by various Israeli, non-Israeli Jewish and Palestinian editors, as well as by those with no stake in the conflict whatsoever, as I would describe myself. People from within each of those groups are always take a different view as to what is genuinely neutral or balanced content, and are always going to debate that. Ultimately however, in my view, this case involved a simple point about what language, words and modes of expression are acceptable on talk and user pages. --Nickhh (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes our trouble maker who never looses an opportunity to bud into everybody's business. He is IMO the most to blame for Wikipedia’s slide into a pro Arab POV. Instead of fighting for neutrality he instead fights all pro-Jewish editors; because maybe he is going to score a brownie point in his agenda. Steve; please bud out. Itzse (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Itzse, your uncivil comments to me are really unacceptable. your behavior is completely out of bounds and totally rude and unacceptable. Please stop, and try to adhere to Wikipedia principles. Your personal attacks are absolutely against Wikipedia principles. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm not attacking you; I'm pointing out your miserable behavior here. Your disruption of normal and legitimate discussion will have to stop; or it's going to be me or you. You do not have to pop in everywhere and say that you agree, and prop up your candidate.
If you do not stop; I will have no choice but to take a week or more off; to build a case of your history of disruptions; including what the best of the best of Wikipedia's editors/administrators/mediators have had to tell you flat out to bud out. I consider you the most dangerous Wikipedian and I think the pits of you. Take it on advisement.
If it's against Wikipedia's rules to point out your unacceptable behavior; then it also is against Wikipedia's rules to lecture Jaacobou. You can't have it both ways. Itzse (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you will promise to change, can I forsee us having a constructive dialogue. For starters let me give you some advice: to only comment on the substance of edits and ideas. No comments about people; good or bad. No taking sides on how to proceed, when to proceed, and with whom to proceed.
BTW I'm not acting; I'm dead serious; maybe to you it's a game; but to me the blood of my people isn't water. If someone else would take my place then I would be more then happy to leave here for good. This is only costing me precious time and aggravation. I have a busy life without having to bother with this. Itzse (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since you are trying to give me some constructive feedback, i can willingly agree to give it some consideration. By the way, my comments at Talk:Second Intifada did pertain directly to the edits which I felt could or could not be legitimately placed within the article. however, I will give your feedback some thought. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for feedback. I think you understand me fully. I believe in open talk, and frown upon backroom correspondence by email. I think that almost all business should be out in the open; which is the backbone on what Wikipedia stands. If you would stop stacking the deck and just lay back as just another Wikipedian then maybe, oh maybe; Wikipedia can get back to normal; although it will be extremely difficult to turn back the immense damage that was already done.
well, I appreciate your posotive sentiments, and your desire to express your thoughts constructively. thanks for your input. I can't promise to make the changes which you suggest, but I can give them some consideration. by the way, by "feedback" i meant the comments you had already made, and did not mean that I was requiring you to use other means or forums. anyway, thanks again for your efforts to approach this openly and constructively. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve I really can't understand you; I thought you're going to change; but alas you're back in business of saying your usual "I agree bla bla bla". I think it's time to let others fight their own battles; you do not always have to encourage the back and forth accusations. Out of all editors why does it always have to be you who steps in? Itzse (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. Expressing agreement or disagreement with other editors happens to be one way, among several, to participate in discussions of various issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I would like to say that I wasn't canvassed (I guess, not important enough); I arrived on my own and gave my vote.
Second; I do want to acknowledge Tiamut (who I have had a long love/hate affair with) for her fortitude in asking to delay the case until Jaakobou can participate in the discussion.
Third; I think here is the place to admonish Nickhh for these two comments 12. It is hypocritical of him to try to sanction Jaakobou; while he himself attacks my poor English skills, clumsy phrasing; and has the gall to call my legitimate vote absurd; only because he disagrees with me!!!
Addhoc; going back to my previous comments; Nickhh happens to be one of the best of the bunch; now you will understand my frustration. Itzse (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just posted a new AE regarding activity of other editors. I apologize Addhoc if you believe I'm being overly sensitive, but I clarify that this is not an unblock request and not intended to assume bad faith on your decision, which was - at least considering my actions, within' reasonable administrative range of decisions (even if I can't help but feel it to be somewhat punitive and judgmental). JaakobouChalk Talk20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you little user
Thank you little user for nice close 'Zilla RFA. Now considering running for crat. Little user support 'Zilla crat? [ /me blows small puff of atomic deathray at little user, to emphasize danger of refusing polite request for support. ] bishzillaROARR!!20:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold(t/a/c)20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rorschach
Perhaps I'm missing something conceptually, so please help me understand how the statement about secrecy of the blots being consistent with APA ethics is an improper synthesis. I can see that it might need a citation to the ethical code (which I can provide as soon as I dig it up), but the code, in fact, does stress security of test items and not releasing such information inappropriately to non-psychologists. Where is the improper synthesis? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I still don't see the improper synthesis. It may be my misunderstanding the concept of "improper synthesis", which is why I sought clarification. It is a fact that psychologists are trained to keep the blots secure (i.e., not exposed to the general public), and it is a fact that the ethics code calls for conforming to test security. What am I missing? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the following applies: "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research". The {{syn}} tag is a request for a citation that directly relates the ethical code to the ink blots. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make sure I understand this. To avoid the synthesis tag, the APA ethical code must specifically name the hundreds of psychological tests to which it's principle about test security apply. It can't simply make statements that apply to all tests; it must specifically state that it applies to Test 1, Test 2, Test 3 ... Test 500, etc. We can't assume that if the ethical principle is stated to apply to "tests" that it refers to the Rorschach test. Is that correct? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. Let me read the specifics in the ethical code. I may post an RfC because I consider that aspect of the synthesis tag to be quite unreasonable. No ethical code, rule, regulation, or law can name every specific circumstance in which it will apply. If an ethical code applies to "tests", and the Rorschach is a "test", I don't consider that synthesis. That's just simple application of the English language. All of this is my opinion, of course, so if I post the RfC we'll see what others have to say. Thanks again for the details. Ward3001 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now what?
Hi! I noticed that you have frozen the Martin Anderson Controversy page. I assume that this has some concrete meaning rather than being simply a suggestion (I haven't tried to edit it yet). I assume that either FConaway or Non-dropframe requested it because of the actions of Ford1206.
So, what happens now? I'm not all that familiar with how this works in Wikipedia. If you could point me to the SOP for the next steps, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Billollib (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank you philknight. i was not vandalizing,i was just putting my two cents in like everyoneelse has. since this article is just one sided. i think it should be blocked more than week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn't know who else to contact but their have been a series of strange edits to the 'Kodiak Brown Bear' page. The article has been edited back to nearly nothing. The page also claims that the bears are endangered, and that's not true. I would edit this the normal way, but it seems to be different, and I can't figure out how to fix it.
The 'Polar Bear' page also claims that the species is classified as threated, and it's not. That subject it currently being decided by the US Fish and Wildlife. They are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection act, but they are not considered endangered or threatened.
I looked at the difference between an old version and the current one, and a *lot* of info has been removed [3], including sourced info. I'll maybe take a look at it and re-add some of it --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you regarding edit warring by warned THUGCHILDz with these POV reverts against 5 different editors: 1, 2, 3 and many others of 19 and 22 March. You know this case pertinent National sport and I hope you consider this unfair situation because I was blocked and THUGCHILDz not yet: it's crazy!!!! You can read this warning: may I edit for improve article national sport? Regards,--PIO (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THUGCHILDz and others are involved in tendentious editing, in fact they were warned, but why did an admin stop only me? Am I an idiot and is THUGCHILDz the boss of that article?--PIO (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, thanks for letting me know. I don't think listing admins, who have blocked or banned disputants, as parties is a good idea - even if their decisions were initially controversial. Good luck with case. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my RFA
Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) AletaSing17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Yosegi article
Hi, I am a big fan of Yosegi crafts, have bought many Yosegi products myself and wanted to show people what it is and give additional details by adding the page to Wikipedia. I've bought most of my Yosegi boxes from BeneGifts.com as they have great article and pictures of Yosegi (another reason is they also have the best prices for them) and I asked them if I could use some of that information to post at Wikipedia. They gave me permission to do it. I think this is an amazing technique and it would be great if Wikipedia has an article about it. Could you please let me know what I should do to restore the article?
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipaylah (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nipaylah, I suggest you rewrite the content of the website in your own words. While I understand they gave you permission, the way that Wikipedia is licensed means that it is unlikely to be sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance require
Hi Phil
I have added few facts about Mike Procter - cricketer and match referee. those were removed. I have added those items on Discussion page for discussion. I had attached the proof from trusted sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Procter
I noticed you while recent change patrolling. Noticed you have proded several articles. Just a question. Do you think the article 2008 Dubai explosion meets WP:N? I cannot understand how to deal with such articles which is about an event, very little WP:RS have been provided. And notability unclear. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MBisanz, no the case doesn't need to be suspended. A couple pages have been protected, but I doubt any further administrative action is required. Good luck with case. PhilKnight (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El_C
Hi,
You may be intersted in a note I left on El_C talk page
I think these diffs could be enough to establish the answer to a simple question: Is El_C an involved admin or not.
while this is not needed to show him as an "involved admin" it is intersting to note that deveral times dedit disputes with El_c turn into admin actions by him. also this edit is intersting as well: [23]. His involvment in Israel Palestine Issues as well articles about communism is clearly related to his real life so I will not enter that part of the discussion (i.e. does persona in real life counts as "uninvolved") in any case his involvment in such isues in wikipedia goes way back: [24]Zeq (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq has harbored animosity toward me for years —due to my role as an uninvolved admin who was key to bringing about and enforcing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq (and antecedents to abuse he inflicted on many prior to it)— and every few months he enters the scene with a bombardment of scattered, unrelated, diffs that lack any context whatsoever. These usually present joking around to friends as serious breach of ethics, reverting sockpuppets of banned pov-pushers, and so on. He has made several "request for clarification" attempts (again, this been going on for years, so I can't be bothered to track these — several are at the bottom of the RfAr/Zeq talk page) where he made these same arguments before the committee, about how involved I am in this, and shouldn't do that. Needless to say, nothing ever happens, beyond me making a comment such as this, and in a few months time, the attack cycle begins again! Thank you. El_C19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "harbored animosity toward El C for years" - this is total nonsense and violation of WP:NPA. I ask that El C stop making NPA against me (he also made one on parallel discussion on his talk page). For now it is suffice to say that El C claims above are not correct but there is no need for anyone to prove him wrong since this issue of what my feelings toward El C is not the issue here at all. I am also not going to re-hash issues from arbitration two years ago or to address the "request for calrification" (was not made by me If I remember correctly) or the mistakes of El C in trying to count articles bans as blocks toward a 5 block count that could have unable El C to block me for longer time. really no point in getting into any of this. As I told El C - he is more than welcome to review any edit I make and enforce the arbitration that has to do with me) let's go back to the two current issues:
The first thing he needs to do is appologize for the series of NPA. The next thing is to deal with the issue at hand:
Is El C an "uninvolved admin" as to the arbCom rulling that require such admin not to be involved in disputes about Israel-Palestine articles ? This is the issue and that is what El C is not willing to deal with in an "uninvolved" fashion. Zeq (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good understanding of User:Zeq's modus operandi can be found here. All three of the editors named were educated, knowledgeable and careful. Two of them have been permanently driven off by Zeqs antics, and its obvious how much the time of the third is being wasted. Much less worthy contributors swooped to defend Zeq and succeeded in blocking discussion of a very important subject. Have you seen the Jerusalem Post recently, inviting editors to defend Israel in Wikipedia? 86.156.111.207 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
clearly I have not arrived here via a Jerusalem post recent article. It is not surprizing that instead of addresing the issue (and the diffs) shosing El c involvment in disputes one an anon choose to attck me. Zeq (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xavexgoem, yes it's certainly an unusual case. The article is currently protected, and if needs be, the protection can be extended. I would prefer to keep the case open a while longer, but if you want to close it, then I won't object. PhilKnight (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "User" 137.158.152.206
Please be aware that srvwinisa003.wf.uct.ac.za is the proxy/firewall for 30,000 students and staff at the University of Cape Town. To date, it appears that only a few instances of trolling have been reported from anonymous persons at UCT computers since the new ISA proxy was introduced in December 2007. From 30,000 users that should be considered a good rate. Unfortunately, you may have to give UCT a decade or two to improve on its archaic IT policies, so that users can transparently access the outside world without appearing to all be from the same IP address. --137.158.152.206 (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog
I see there is a growing backlog over at Medcab, and Medcomm is also backlogged (otherwise they wouldn't be asking common folk like me to help out), might some joint push to get active users (ideally admins) to work in mediations be in order? MBisanztalk06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MBisanz, thanks for the prompt. I've recently been wrapped up in the homeopathy mediation/enforcement, and to a lesser extent the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and haven't taken any medcab cases. However, the homeopathy article dispute has calmed down, and several highly experienced editors have got involved, so I doubt that will take up much of my time. I'll open some of the cases that were filed earlier in the month, although to be honest, I think one or two are practically resolved already. Regarding the medcom backlog, I was thinking of following your and Seddon69's lead of volunteering, but I'll wait until the medcab cases are reaching a close first. In terms of prompting admins, Sebastian could be available to help with medcom - but I guess it depends on how much time the working group is taking. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my RfA
I can has mop?
Hi PhilKnight/Archive30! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
