User talk:Arkon/archive4

Arbitration/Requests/Case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
 * The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
 * Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
 * Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
 * "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
 * "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
 * "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
 * "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
 * The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.


 * All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
 * Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
 * The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
 * All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
 * Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
 * Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
 * Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold
This has simply gotten ridiculous. I'm drafting a user conduct RfC at User:Yworo/draft. I've never done one of these before, have you? Could you collaborate on getting it properly filled out? Yworo (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, wish I could help, but I know absolutely nothing about that side of the house. Good luck though! Arkon (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre
Hi. I opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about the statement that the perpetrator's mother sought an exorcism for him, that some editors are trying to include in the lead. You were involved in the edit-revert cycle of this edits, so I'm kindly asking you to express your opinions of the matter in the mentioned thread. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied, thanks! Arkon (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Username
Is your username a reference to the musician or the comic book character (or neither)? Just curious :) Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not even as interesting as that :) I remember playing Starcraft when I was younger, and there was a unit called 'Archon', which I liked the sound of, but thought the spelling was....lame.  So, I changed it to Arkon. Arkon (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah Starcraft! :) Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ChrisO
i am confused by this person, there are no contributions from him His user page was deleted and there is a talk page which was first edited on 30 March 2011‎. How can a person with no edit history have had interactions with another editor? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, I have no idea who this person is or was :o) and I suppose it would be best to just not bother. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop
...hatting discussions on the CRU talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were discussing something related to the CRU article, it wouldn't be an issue. Take your User disputes where they belong. Arkon (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that I have no "user dispute" and that the user in question is disrupting the talk page and is now on their third user account in the last week.  You know this, you evidently support this disruption, and you are in turn, disrupting the talk page with your "hatting".  You are always welcome to discuss hatting and to hat by consensus.  Furthermore, your contribution history shows you haven't edited much (I'm being very generous, you haven't made any content contributions at all) in the last year, so showing up on the CRU talk page and hatting tells me that you aren't as innocent as you appear. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Annnnnnnd you still can't justify clogging up an article talk page with your petty user disputes. I will continue to hat off topic conversations, and you are welcome to complain.  Arkon (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. *Your* biases are also all too obvious. When you start hatting PT's stuff, I might revise my opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But mommy, he hit me first!!! Arkon (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)