User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 10

socionics article
A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

tag
passing through another page, spotted a thread which caught my eye, and was led here by curiosity. Couldn't help but deface such a clean and shiny talk page - and I was such a nice boy before I started wiki-ing ;-) Hope you're well....... Privatemusings (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Werner G. Göring
Hi Cool Hand Luke. I need your help. Someone decided in February to move the article Werner G. Goering to Werner G. Göring. The problem is that Werner Goering was born and raised in the USA to German-born parents, so his name in the USA was not Göring, because that name wouldn't be possible in any official documents like birth certificates and social security documentation. So I tried moving it back to the spelling without the umlaut, but I got a message that I couldn't move it because an article of that name already existed. And it also told me that I should contact an administrator, so here I am.

I bet you have more options available to you to do this. If you can move it for me, I can go through that article and change the actual spelling in the text.

Thanks. BigBen212 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX?
Hi, I was puzzling over this edit and wondering what the rationale is for adding to a given category. (Somehow I've never come across this before.) Cgingold (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Target Field history merge
Hi, a few months ago you helped restore some deleted edits from redirects and history merge them with Marlins' ballpark. Similarly, could you also restore and history merge the deleted history from Twins ballpark to Target Field. Thanks - Cmjc80 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk page refactoring of comments..
Hi, can i ask you to look at this:, and advise. I'm asking you because you aren't seen as an involved person on global warming, and because i've respected your polite comments - even though we have had disagreements ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That RFAR
You really don't care for it? I replied a bit in the uninvolved section. It's like a fixed duration topic ban, where you can set your own duration. If the committee keeps the power to reset the counter after (or during) it's like the perfect genericized way to encourage anyone to do 'other good work' away from what gives them trouble. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping. I just don't want it to get lost in the shuffle as a question. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  09:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over the name "One"
Ah, nah, it's alright. I mostly put up the explanation of not being One from WR because I had been asked about it ten or twelve times beforehand. Don't worry, nothing too major. One (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Advise/help
Hey Luke - I am turning to you because I think you have checkuser privileges and whether you do or not I trust your advice. This edit is outing, and I believe it may be by recently banned (not by me) User:Populares. You can learn virtually all the facts from reading the Talk:Francesco Carotta page and user:Populares's talk page, but I can sum up two salient points: first, after non-stop edit-warring by hostile SPA Populares, who was blocked numerous times, he was finally blocked indefinitely. As soon as he was blockec, an anonymous user made precisely the same revert he had been warring, so I protected the article page to all but admins given the prolonged conflict - at some point I hope the protection can be lowered but only (in my view) when I see constructive discussion on the talk page and not just rounds of personal insults. Second I am not sure about my being outed - obviously I chose a user name with my last name in it (this was back in 2001 when who would have thought outing would be an issue? But I never felt a need to turn back the clock). Nevertheless, I have never made my identify an issue, I do not gove any clues to my identity on my user page and have never made my professional identity an issue in editing. I do not really like the idea of my address in public like this. I am not asking for oversight (I would be happy to delete this user's comment and just let it receed into oblivion). I would do this myself, were I not convinced that this anonymous user, or a friend of his/hers, would just return and post the material again.

I hoped that with one disruptive editor banned, the talk page could be used exclusively to discuss improving the articles. A couple of anonymous users seem intent on disrupting the page no matter what and I do not know what to do. Thanks for your attention, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for inserting myself into this discussion. The publication of a full address is oversightable regardless of whose it is, for personal security and privacy reasons, and is carried out routinely without controversy. It's "non-public personal information". As such I have suppressed the accessibility of this edit.
 * I shall now let someone else decide what to do with the anonymous editor. Sorry for playing through.  Risker (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove Eric Dill redirect
Luke - can you remove the "Eric Dill" redirect and allow it to become its own listing? In the past, this redirect was made because "Eric Dill" lacked notoriety. Yet, Eric Dill, an independent artist, is the writer for Chris Daughtry's new single, which will be released tomorrow (May 6) on American Idol, "No Surprise." You can find a reference to this on Chris Daughtry's official website. Visit think link and look at the end of the lyrics: http://www.daughtryofficial.com/blog/lyrics-no-surprise-interpret-it-how-you?page=1

Thank you. Talk 5 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.118.222 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected the page. You can now edit it to create an article. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain
the difference between your views on Nickhh/Pedrito and your views on NoCal100 in the West Bank case. In particular, you have not proposed any additional findings on Nickhh/Pedrito - why should one be treated differently to another for the sole behavioural issue of edit-warring? Especially when there is more evidence of problem behaviour from NoCal100 than there is for Nickhh/Pedrito in the findings? If there's something I'm missing, please explain that too. Please also see my comments here and on the PD-talk page. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The community in fear that it would've picked a method of 'no favourites' when imposing sanctions brings disputes of this nature (even on Obama articles) are brought to ArbCom so that each editor is treated equitably. So, can you explain why as an arbitrator, you would go against the latter approach favoured by the community and indifferently adopt the former approach? Do you believe that you were elected to resolve issues through the former approach? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is not a court of equity. We exist to promote the interests of the encyclopedia. Period. In some cases, this means picking out a few problematic editors, but in this case, there's more than enough blame to go around. This topic has not improved over several prior cases, and it seems that a more sweeping across-the-board approach might work. I do not think our interests are served by trying to divine for the umpteenth time which parties were "worse," while allowing the "better" parties to hang around.
 * I would like to clear everyone out of this topic and restart with fresh faces who might not fall into these endless battles. Anyhow, this discussion is better suited to the case pages. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the PD talk page which addresses much of your reply here. But the gist is this: "inequitable remedies are not in the interests of this encyclopedia or its contributors. If anything, it promotes a sense of unfairness and deters fresh faces from contributing in the area at all. That's precisely why we elected them when it came to these sorts fo disputes - to ensure that doesn't happen. We didn't elect them so that all they do was force participants to spend weeks surrounded by bureaucracy, after which they do what we could've done in 72hours-1week, without wasting time on principles and Fofs." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a "Nazi" news note
FYI, from my talk page. No comment necessary. Just informing (and, I hope, amusing) people about WR. -- Noroton (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cough
"His answer to number 5 strikes me as wrong, but also irrelevant. User is not going to be closing RFAs."

I think you mean AfDs. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Why I'm being lump togeter in this group? . I have never used "Similar equipment". "Technical evidence confounds them" Not me, I'm in the military stationed in Japan, I have never used or being associated with this IP sharing group. I have never engaged or being accused of edit warring or any incivility. On what basis I'm being lump in this group? Bravehartbear (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you check this one too? I'm in two places lump togeter with this group.

Small fixes
I'd correct your typos here and here (Alphadog --> Alfadog), but only Arbitrators and Clerks are allowed to edit the page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. :) Cirt (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Email
Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Television Radio
I am accused sockppupperty and all those accounts i created i don't want to be notice to the public99.132.131.141 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Looking for a link
I see that User:Guido den Broeder‎ has been unblocked. Is there a link to the ArbCom case somewhere? I would like to make sure that Da Costa's syndrome is specifically named as being included in the topic ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool Hand Luke, I would much appreciate it if you would stop making tendentious statements about my editing, as you did on above user's talk. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder
I'm not sure of the correct forum to raise this, so please don't be offended that I've brought my concerns here (I'm not trying to shoot the messenger). I was initially glad to see the AC unblock of Guido with the conditions for editing laid out. This is the kind of thing I think is good, and could be applied to other editors who have shown dedication to this wikiproject while banned (and not even indef in a particular case I'm thinking of). However, my opinion changed when I saw that Guido has already denied on his talk page, in response to your post, much of the behaviour that led to the indef block. I find this lack of understanding so very quickly after the unblock disturbing, as I would hope that the use!r would acknowledge they behaved improperly before (and that this should have been a requirement for the unblock). Guido has also removed a comment from WLU stating "rpa" which I understand to be an accusation of a personal attack. The unbalanced removal of comments with such edit summaries was one of the behaviours which originally exhausted the communities patience. I bring my concerns to you as the messenger for ArbCom and the unblocking admin, and not to Guido's talk as I feel it will simply be removed before you can respond. What is your opinion, and ArbComs, concerning this lack of awareness and repeating of problematic behaviour. I will post a note on his page about this thread and decided to do this openly rather than by email. Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with the concerns Verbal expresses here, but am comforted by CHL's statement on Guido's talk page here. I also think that most of the editors Guido has had disputes with in the past (certainly including myself) should step back, take a deep breath, and let this last chance be an honest one.  If Guido has changed, we won't have any problems.  If he hasn't, we'll know in time.  I'll do my best to not post on his talk page unless absolutely necessary.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal  chat  16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your post to Guido as i was writing my post to you! Thanks, Verbal   chat  16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GvB didn't like my wisdom, so I'll leave it here instead. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
On my talk page you wrote: Guido is encouraged to develop his contributions in other areas. I am sorry to report that despite extensive search I have not been able to find another area on Wikipedia (where I could make a significant contribution, that is) where ownership has not equally been established. So, regardless of the topic, I would continue to run into the same problems, and any effort that I make would be in vain.

I am open to suggestions, but it looks like Wikipedia will not have the benefit of my dedication. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your continued threats and unfounded accusations of pov-editing unacceptable. I will not converse with you again. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Following this, the comments above, and Guido's comments on his talk, may I ask that Guido is blocked and it is noted as his failure rather than a failure of this experiment? Verbal  chat  16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:DNFTT is a better approach - rather than producing more drama and allowing Guido to consider himself vindicated through persecution, just don't bother. If he stops editing, no-one will ever have a problem with him again.  If he continues editing, it'll either be disruptive, with another block, or unproblematic and his post won't matter.  Anyone is free to wax dramatic on their userpage and feed on the resulting drama.  The real issue is when their edits are bad for main pages.  A block might satisfy me in a pillory-sort of way, but does not help the project overall or Guido in particular.  Let him be and deal with the problems as they arise.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a bad attitude is enough to reblock him. If he engages in more similar behavior even after these warnings, I don't think we'd have another option. Cool Hand Luke 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely refusing to accept the conditions of his unblock and the causes of his original blocking, as endorsed by the community and two arbcoms, is enough reason? I'll leave it in your capable hands though, of course, and WLU has a valid point. Verbal   chat  16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but I tend to agree with WLU. If he really is quitting, there's nothing else for us to do. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Until he actually breaks the conditions of his arbcom, ban and unblock, we're pretty much re-blocking out of spite because he is not adhering to our version of wikipedia in spirit. Much as I think this is all a pointless waste of drama, we don't get to judge unless we adhere to the spirit of the project - we're building an encyclopedia, not playing out minidramas.  By re-blocking I think we'd essentially be proving the point he made in his essay - wikipedia is more about power, control and ingroups than it is about content.  Since he's not threatening the content, I don't think we should care.  We should let him leave with minimum fanfare.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents - I'm sure Fram would have notified you if it had occured to them. Verbal  chat  21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that some clarification is needed with regard to the width of the topic ban; see my talk. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two issues that you will need to adress, expressed clearly.
 * Can GDB edit articles about Myalgic encephalomyelitis without violating his topic ban on Chronic fatigue syndrome (please review the wikipedia articles I link to carefully, thanks)
 * Does the CFS topic ban apply to namespaces other than 0 and 1. If so, which?
 * I was hopeful this would not need to be elevated and my strong but civil reminder that he was not to edit on the CFS topic generally, anywhere, would be enough. Alas. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking amendment
Tony's sanction has been amended from "all related discussions" to "as well as the talk pages of those policy and guideline pages, and any related template pages". Quite sensible; it would not do to ban him from discussing the Arbitration itself, which the vaguer wording might. I requested here that the ArbCom consider extending this clarification to Kotniski, Locke, Kendrick, and myself; but, aside from support from Rexxs, this seems to have been overlooked. Would you mind suggesting this amendment to ArbCom in general? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oversight
Are you a oversight? An user recommended that I come to you because of my name being mentioned on Wikipedia. Can you help me? Wireless Key board Click!  Clack! 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:


 * A. Tenmei's analysis here and here paraphrases Coren's measured language here:
 * "We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
 * 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
 * 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
 * 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
 * 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
 * "As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."


 * B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
 * "This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions
Can you, or someone from AC, add Guido's topic ban to this list. I was going to but I wasn't sure exactly how to do it. Cheers, Verbal   chat  15:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We said all articles and talk pages. If we had known he would wikilawyer like this, I'm not sure what we would have done. Maybe we would have specified all pages altogether just to be safe. On the other hand, if we had known he would do this, I doubt we would have unblocked him.


 * Anyhow, I'm recused from his case and I'm therefore not comfortable issuing him more warnings or clarifications. I recommend you ask either User:Coren or User:Rlevse, who seem to be most closely watching this situation right now. Cool Hand Luke 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not 'wikilawyered' anything. I asked for clarification, that's all. Perhaps topic bans are something you are familiar with, but I am not, and there is precious little info to be found on Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Guido, you argued with an arbitrator about the scope of your topic ban, claiming that ME->CFS was a "faulty redirect." I wish you would show more self-awareness about your behavior. Cool Hand Luke 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. I said that I was not responsible for the faulty redirect. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are now edit warring on global warming. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I most certainly am not. Or are you accusing the users that restored my edits of being my sockpuppets? Please, Luke, withdraw. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Guido, you are fighting a particularly lame edit war. Period. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Guido, this is the epitome of wikilawyering, you did say it was a "faulty redirect" and you did argue about the scope of the restriction. Per this you violated 1RR on Global warming and I'm blocking you, Guido, for a week while arbcom considers this further.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good faith - an essential, if sometimes painful, fundamental of Wikipedia
Extending good faith to those who have the potential to bring something to Wikipedia is one of our core principles, and perhaps one of the most difficult to achieve, as you have seen for yourself. Please give yourself credit for making the effort to extend good faith to someone who did his best to appear as someone who wanted to improve this encyclopedia, to abide by our policies. Your arguments, and Guido's as well, reminded each of us of the importance of making the effort, and of allowing people to succeed or fail on their own recognizance. You are understandably dismayed, but please do not feel like you have "let the side down". Other editors have succeeded in overcoming their prior histories, given the opportunity to do so, and it was worthwhile to give Guido one more chance to show his true colours. The decision was not yours alone, although you certainly did much of the work, and outlined entirely reasonable conditions which easily could have been met. In a few days, or weeks, another editor will come along who will also have the potential to bring something to the encyclopedia. When that time comes, I am certain that your stores of good faith will have been replenished. Best, Risker (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I second Risker's comments and I wish to add that extending wp:agf was never meant to be easy. If it were easy we wouldn't need to have the guideline. By extending wp:agf in this difficult case you maximised the chances of potential benefit to the project while at the same time giving an editor a second chance. You took a beautiful risk in the pursuit of a noble goal. Thank you Luke. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC))


 * As I said over at ANI I echo the above sentiments. I think you did a good thing and I'm sorry it's turned out this way. Verbal   chat  07:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this summarizes my sentiment as well. Being an arbitrator means getting crapped on.  Being an arbitrator willing to give second chances adds an exponential level of difficulty to the task.  No-one cares what the definition of "is" is, we care about building an encyclopedia with minimal disruption.  You may have let Guido down (and I found the initial unblocking aggravating to the extreme), but it elevated the community.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Per your request on WR
But I'm not going to ask the specific question, which I just read. I'm not interested in 'why' Jayjg lost Oversight twice (answer if you feel like it, but I don't care so much), but I am vastly more interested for the well-being of this website to know by name simply this:

In each instance, who voted or made the 'executive decision' to return the tools, and with what reasoning and/or justification? Today, this information--the 'voting record'--would be mandatory public information. Thanks. rootology ( C )( T ) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Rootology's question. I think this should be public information. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I can't think of any follow up questions right now.  I think the arbitrators who were involved should reveal themselves, but that's up to them. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There are detailed answers at User_talk:Rootology from both CHL and Thatcher. Thanks again, guys. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
I've sent you one. Thanks. Acalamari 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2
Hello, I have noticed you are one of the arbitrators on this case that have yet to vote on the de-sysoping of Future Perfect at Sunrise. I feel very strongly about this issue and have left a note that might be of interest to you on the talkpage of the proposed discussion page. Best regards. --Athenean (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Histmerges

 * Please help me with Category:History merge for speedy deletion. I found 27 histmerge requests there, about an hour ago. So far this morning (by UK time) I have attended to 6 of them.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When you make histmerges, do you list them in Cut and paste move repair holding pen? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban = punishment view
Cool Hand Luke if I and editors like Tilman were involved in CURRENT disputes like we were BEFORE the first case, I'd have nothing to argue about because the ARBCOM would be acting to correct current aberrant behavior. The fact is he, I, and several others were no longer involved in any disputes when the ban was handed down, therefore there is no corrective measure needed, thus a topic ban can only be for punishment.

I'm also curious why you think I'm an "edit warrior". I tried like hell to bring the problem of certain Scientologists removing valid sources and replacing them with word for word descriptions from Scientology pages to a resolution using WP:DR and when that failed I backed off but continued editing some Scientology articles without problems. Wouldn't an edit warrior just keep making trouble after the first case? Anynobody(?) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2 closing? What about the R25.x's?
Proposed remedy 25 shows you recently offset your vote to allow for other options to be considered. A number of arbitrators have already voted to close the case, so I am hoping that you'll get to vote on this before it's too late. I realise that none of the remedies relating to Future Perfect's administrator status is currently passing. This could go either way, but I was hoping to see this matter addressed one way or the other before the case ends. I understand that you may be waiting to see how the temporary desysopping remedies go. If that is the case, then why not vote as "Second" or "Third choice" on remedy 25? That will ensure the issue gets addressed even if the case closes. (I have left a similar note on John Vandenberg's talk page as you guys are the only ones who haven't voted on R25 yet) --Radjenef (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpup closure
Hi, there is a sockpuppetry pending on my account, i request you to please go through it and resolve it if it falls in to your authority. Trusting your judgement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pushkraj.janwadkar Warm regards Vertical.limit (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Email, maybe urgent maybe not. ..
Hi CHL, I just sent you an email. Could you check? Just trying to keep the drama to a minimum. . .but it could be a problem. (note: also sent a copy to Newyorkbrad). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NYB, got to it. Looks like a big "oops, nevermind".  See followup email. Thanks,  R. Baley (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka
Hello coolhandluke, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged. If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Surprised and confused
I must say, I am quite surprised you're supporting (in fact, enacting by proxy) a lengthy pre-emptive protection of an administrators' talk page. ArbCom recently passed unanimously a motion that held "Administrators are required to explain their actions." Should this be amended to "Administrators are required to explain their actions only to logged-in users." ? –xenotalk 19:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but perhaps it could have been written to avoid such wikilawyering. Even Arbitrators have semi-protected pages. Your language is way over the top, and I think you're singling this user out. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not "enfranchise" IP addresses on user pages. Cool Hand Luke 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Other stuff exists. I don't think any admins should have a semi-protected talk page unless there's been protracted and severe abuse. It runs counter to our model. And even then, they ought make a subpage available for anons. And I'm not singling the user out, I've done runs through the database report to unprotect indefinitely semi-protected talk pages. Seems like it's time for another run. –xenotalk 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I can't think of a worse excuse to create drama. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

CHL: Your replies seem pretty hollow. "We're here to make an encyclopedia"? Where does a "public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me" fall within that goal?

Further, the community and the Arbitration Committee have consistently held that this is a collaborative project. They've also consistently held that administrators should be as open as possible to inquiries from users.

Hindsight being 20/20, I think it would have been best if Root had used a subpage for this JoshuaZ-related thing and left his talk page alone. Alas. Lessons learned for next time, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our volunteer contributors deserve to set terms of their engagement with the site; we should encourages them to contribute in a friendly environment free of thrice-removed backseat wikilawyering. If anything, editors should be encouraged to anticipate and mitigate vandalism and privacy violations. He's done a stand-up job here. Cool Hand Luke 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Screaming Mechanical Brain
According to Deletion review, I am supposed to contact the admin who deleted a page to discuss that deleted page's restoration. Screaming Mechanical Brain has gained some notability in the past few years. They are as notable as Retard-O-Bot whom they share the same record label with. I have been continually updating User:Tlogmer/SMB and I have created its associated pages. Please let me know what you think. FallenWings47 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit histories
Can you merge the histories of Winnie the Pooh and Winnie The Pooh (Disney)? Both are similar entries specific to the Disney character with no edit overlap. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.15.87 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost request
Please note that Judas is not the only one on that side of the dispute. Also note the relative size and content of Judas' and 194x's statements, before deciding that the request is moot because Judas left. ArbCom could also place restrictions on the article that will apply to future editors (or future incarnations of current editors), if necessary. If you're mostly declining because I didn't do enough before opening the case, fine, but it's hardly moot at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested
Ohconfucius is campaigning, on the clarification page, and now in this section of WP:AE to have me blocked for editing the Naming Conventions. It is news to me that these were ever intended to be part of the ban imposed by WP:ARBDATE.

Please comment. Do recall that sanctions against me were added at the last moment and passed by a very narrow margin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you recuse yourself?
I am interested why you recused yourself from the AMIB arbcom. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Best wishes, Ikip (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia
Thought you might be interested in this new wikipedia space page that FT2 just posted. Made me think of you. Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remembering that incident :). Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Farah
I have s-protected Joseph Farah under the assumption, based on a whois, that the IPs causing a disruption are probably all the same person. If this were a named user, 5 BLP-questionable reverts in 44 hours would probably earn them a block, so this s-protection is in lieu of range blocking all of Germany. As an arbiter, feel free to overturn or if you have the ability to clean out the sock drawer via checkuser, please do so. --B (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Conversation
I hereby acknowledge having an off-wiki conversation. --Cool Hand Luke 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am "One" on Wikipedia Review. ... Cool Hand Luke 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fall 2009 Meetup in Providence?
I'm trying to schedule another Providence Meetup for the Fall. Please drop a note at Fall 2009 dates? expressing interest and preferences for dates/times. --mikeu talk 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction
thank you for the correction.

I will promptly examine and probably correct that error, and apologize to both WMC and Raul if needed, can you point to where that error is? Ikip (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may have me confused with someone else. Please clarify or correct. Ikip (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Luke, my apologies, you are correct. Thank you for pointing out this discrepency. I reworked the section, removing the incorrect information, and apologized to WMC and Raul.
 * Have a wonderful weekend sir. Ikip (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but thanks for your WP:BITE  comments. I felt they were so eloquent and thoughtful, they now have a prominent place on my talk page.

Ikip (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was probably the nicest, kindest words anyone has ever said to me, thank you Mr. Luke. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon proposal at ANI
This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby
With regard to the recent brouhaha, as a gesture of good faith I will no longer report Scibaby sockpuppets nor will I revert their edits. Hopefully this will help reduce the drama level. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Zhao Zhiqian
Hello Cool Hand Luke, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Zhao Zhiqian has been removed. It was removed by John Z with the following edit summary ' (rm prod, quite notable artist add el) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with John Z before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Joys of Inline Cites
Hi again -- saw your name on my watch list and decided to look at your user page. Congratulations on your elevation to the Arb Com, I guess. From hanging around the edges of discussions, I don't think the last few months have been the Committee's best, but........ I appreciate your note on inline cites on your page. If you remember, I was also an editor in those free old days. Although I support the accountability of inline cites, the current level of obsession annoys me. We seem to have to source each and every sentence now, no matter how self-evident. Hopefully that obsession will ease off over time. I have been interacting with a user on an LDS page (Thomas B. Marsh) that is of the "if it is not cited we must immediately delete" persuasion. I attempted to give him the same type of history lesson, but he seems unconvinced. I'm seeing more and more of these types of editors, as well as the ones that "tag" what they consider wrong and then run away.

Well enough ranting. Here's an update to your outdated LDS/Grandpa Bill link [] Although the same user Rtdem considers the site "pontification" and unworthy of Wikipedia. Where do these guys come from? Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cough 2
"(even though everyone agrees that the purpose is to codify the more lenient standards that actually exist)"

The standard is still oppressive for the reasons I suggested. There should not be any condoning of any deletion for any other reason besides our content related policies. Behavior is not a justification for content related changes and never should be. Behavior policies should be kept separate from content policies. Someone who personally attacks someone should not be justification for removing their edits somewhere else, so why would a "ban" about one justify the deletion of another? If someone wants to go after a user and make sure they are banned, then they have many options - blocking, range blocking, protecting pages, etc. But deleting content should -not- be an option. Once content is up as a way to go after a user, then the issue is damaging the Wikipedia and is more about revenge than about dealing with problematic behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saying
As far as I can remember, I've never disagreed with Kato, but I'm glad that Kato added the what he considered scholarship: "Get serious please. 172 was a liberal historian who wrote several highly accomplished featured articles in the early days of WP. He was an administrator, and held a high standard of what he considered scholarship." Look over the FARs of 172's articles ... mostly uncited articles. In the days when he wrote FAs, one could write just about anything and not have to cite it, and not one of his FAs stood the test of time. The other descriptions of 172's editing style are more accurate. No idea on the LaRouche issue, but 172 was a warrior. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there are far, far too many people like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point. Many of the articles that have been de-FA'd in recent years were actually very encyclopedic in tone and treatment of their subject in the classical "reads like Britannica" sense, and in most cases were well written, thorough, and accurate. What they didn't have was specific citations for individual concepts. It is two very different styles of writing, and Wikipedia has elected to go with the "ref every fact" style, and is one of the main differences between our "product" and that of others. It is one of the ways in which Wikipedia has addressed the issue of having non-specialists writing the majority of articles. Just keep something in mind: It's not that hard at all to cobble together a paragraph that is significantly different from mainstream thought simply by selective referencing to existing high quality reference sources, and using reliable sources as references does nothing to stop people from subtly inserting POV information. Risker (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But when a "historian" who is also a POV warrior is writing uncited articles, it's a different problem. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Two different problems. Risker (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My identity
I keep my identity concealed for safety reasons. I think the reason I get asked if I am all sorts of different article subjects is that I tend to write positive content generally so it can come off as promotional. Over time I've reigned it in better but I still get - mostly anons - accusing me of being all sorts of folks or in some way vested in some article or content being kept. There are worse things that could happen and frankly even if I said "no" I doubt most would believe me. I had hoped with all my work on List of male performers in gay porn films that I would be accused of some terrific porn work ... but no. -- Banj e  b oi   22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are not the subject of those articles? Crafty (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

your comments here
Hi Cool Hand Luke. I have closed the above AfD as a matter of process because it was started by an illegitimate sock account of another editor. I note your comments at that page where you indicate you would be happy to restart the AfD. I am coming here to ask that you do so if you still wish to.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54#Paid_editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.42.18 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike - please see my comment in response to your question. It seems our edits were almost in unison.-- VirtualSteve  need admin support? 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that Will Beback had something to do with this? I think he's been out of the loop himself until now. Gimme a break. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Mantanmoreland sock
Based on these edits     as well as further activity in the Naked Short Selling article, I believe that User:JohnnyB256 may be a Mantanmoreland sock. What is to be done? Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cla68, the text that you sought to add from the Register was a republication of allegations made in that same publication in October 2008. At that time you sought to introduce that source to Gary Weiss and were correctly refused on the grounds of BLP. I did not participate in that discussion, but in light of that history I'm surprised that you expressed bewilderment when I objected to introducing the identical allegations from the identical source into the DTCC article. At that point you ceased participating in that discussion and came here. Had I not reverted your latest efforts, I imagine others would have done so sooner or later. Given that BLP was involved, sooner is always better than later. The changes to DTCC since then have I think made the section more neutral. If you disagree, please post your objections there. Lar initially objected, but evidently his concerns were allayed. User RegentsPark also weighed in, and comments were solicited at Wikiproject Finance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAID
Progress is now being made at WP:Paid editing. The topic is very important, and I'd love to get the proposed policy back on track. If you have any input, I'd love to see it on the page. Smallbones (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention at ANI
I mentioned you briefly at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, where you may or may not want to correct me or respond. Fine with me either way. Smallbones (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Currrent interest?
Luke, I think this, this, and this may be of current interest to you, given a comment you made here. The last sentence of my comment on 24 March 2008 in the third link is the best summary of my assessment of the situation at the time. I haven't followed closely enough to have a new assessment. GRBerry 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Oops, I'd forgotten about this and this which are more recent and obviously related. GRBerry 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.
You wrote: "People need to see what they're voting on." I contend that anyone even remotely qualified to "vote" in the discussion is able to, and would in-fact, read the history of the page - the page that that has, so far, driven at least one editor who is so obviously distant from any kind of malfeasance to serious distraction that not blanking the page immediately as a courtesy to that one editor alone is not "In the best interests of the encyclopedia." I suggest that you take the initiative to undo your blanking. Feel free to link to the version that you feel needs to be kept, or whatever, but for that one editors peace of mind, I think you should consider doing the right thing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, Crohnie is on "good" terms with Abd at this point,, as well as myself, . I don't think that she has left the project, though.  I believe that she was due to have some surgery last friday but I don't know her current status.  I don't object to attempts to make her feel less intimidated, although I am not clear on what Hipocrite's edits to the Cabal page were actually intended to do in this regards.  --GoRight (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a more accurate reflection of what "good" terms Crohnie is on with Abd at this point. Woonpton (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I hadn't seen that. I guess the truce broke down, I don't know why.  She seemed fine with me when she was asking me questions in the thread I provided to my talk page.  --GoRight (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GoRight, I am fine with you. I think you and I talked things out and was honest and I thank you for that.  With learning about WP Review and seeing what's being written there, if you haven't checked the links provided during the case maybe you should, I am quite surprised at who is there and what they say.  Hey Cool Hand Luke, any comment about what was said about me?  Should I just put my retired notice up now?  I'm upset with what I've read, not with what you said actually, but with what you didn't say.  You're an arbitator, one I supported and trusted, how could you?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Thanks Luke, I did see that you had blanked Abd/Cabal, that contained Abd's "evidence" for cabal membership, but when I was asking if it didn't make sense to blank the evidence that was housed in his userspace, if the case was to be blanked, I didn't mean just that page, but all the evidence housed in the userspace. So when you said you'd done that, I wasn't sure whether you meant just that one page or all of the evidence. In case you meant the former, here are a few more pages that were part of his evidence section:

Abd/Response to Stephan Schulz Abd/Response to Bilby User:Abd/Response to William M. Connolley Abd/Response to Enric Naval Abd/Response to Mathsci

Abd/Response to Spartaz Abd/Response to Raul654

Abd/Response to Shot info Abd/Response to Alex Bakharev

Abd/Response to Woonpton

Abd/Response to Noren Abd/Response to Verbal Abd/Response to Scuro

I appreciate your help and understanding; this was a very stressful and frustrating experience for me, but ArbCom's responsiveness to the concerns of affected editors has helped alleviate some of those bad feelings. Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

CB
Just spotted As it happens, the WMC-Abd case will certainly be blanked as a courtesy, probably on behalf of multiple editors. off at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff. "certainly" is an interesting choice of word. At the moment, no editors want them blanked. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard discusses this but is rather notably short of arb contributions. Since C, who did it, is not around at the moment perhaps you, who predicted it, could comment? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence
Evidence postings are really scattered, and at this stage too time consuming to find. The Alden Jones incident in question was commented upon in the evidence section of Piotrus 2. Since mine is mostly deleted now, I'll repost the section:
 * Shortly afterwards a user came out of nowhere and reverted, User:Alden Jones, for which effort he was almost blocked for it. The user has only poor English, no interest in the topic and was only reverting to "support" Piotrus, and most of his edits in the past have consisted of little more than reverting to whatever version of an article Piotrus happens to prefer. Funnily enough, Alden had been inactive for more than three weeks prior to that revert, since his 2 day block for revert-warring (along with Piotrus) on Truce of Vilna. Alden Jones has since effectively revealed that he was sent there by another user; the only other reverter was, of course, Piotrus . Piotrus later left this message Long time after the single revert, but 2 hours after Lokyz' comment there. Use your own judgment here. He has since claimed this is a loving follower, and now I'm just waiting for him to claim that Alden's gaff was the result of his poor English.

The diff, presented above, is here. But, despite this, we got:
 * 25.3) There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is responsible for any off-wiki editing coordination that may have occurred in this case.

Passed by 6 arbs to 0. See also Sciurinae's evidence Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes, and MK's Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Evidence, and this thread Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive38. I expressed my frustration here and elsewhere. There is plenty more, posted in various places around AE threads and noticeboards: User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim/North-East_Europe_AE_threads. I collected a list of Arb Enforcement threads there up to date as of June 18 this year (which is c. when I felt it useful to compile, losing interest afterwards). Cheers,. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to post this all here. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just responding to a request by CoolHandLuke. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cla68 is right. I think you should post a synopsis on the evidence page. I'm not the only newer arbitrator; I'm sure we would all appreciate some background, especially for things that look like tag-teaming. Cool Hand Luke 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, alright. You guys have enough to read already though. I'll just summarise the history as I see it. Anything else you'd like me to comment on? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Posted evidence. I added nothing about the email-list, because it is so ridiculously easy to show almost every party to this acting badly and because I am not apparently allowed to post the email content online. It makes much more sense to wait until the arbs have went through it themselves and then supplement it with anything left out. But you guys have got a big job here. How can you ever get through 3000+ emails, and THEN summarise the contents to so many interested parties? Good luck! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some evidence to the case which I hope will be helpful regarding the tag teaming, etc. BTW, you should also read this: User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview. Offliner (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool Hand, I saw your notice about providing evidence of tag-teams from another side. What period of time would you like to be covered? Should I bring again some evidence from the previous EE case (as another side is doing), or it would be better only to bring something new, because ArbCom had already made decisions on the previous case? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

COI
Please take a look at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Smallbones (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I would like to know if it is ok with you to have a discussion via email? I would like to get some things clarified and feel what I would like to discuss is not served by doing it here. I promise it will not be in regards to anything on going nor will it compromise anything you are doing. I just feel a need to discuss something with you and I think doing it this way would help me and maybe even you understand some things. If you feel ok with this please feel free to email me using the email tab on my page or respond here or preferably my talk page. I really think we could have a useful conversation that would take a very short time to accomplish an understanding of things. Sorry if I sound cryptic but I really think what I want to discuss should be discussed offline. If what I have to say is not wanted you can easily just ignore or tell me so. My feelings really don't get hurt that easily though I know it probably doesn't seem so. :) Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"I'm still not convinced they were the same person"
Really? I mean... come on.. They do themselves no favours when they try this line of 'defence'. If they had simply put their hands up and said "yes I had a COI, yes I've done wrong, yes I'll stop", this would have died on day one - it's the simple unreality of their statements that draw more eyes to this, I'm reminded of Comical Ali. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I think I've said enough :) in the ANI discussion. But the implication of the e-mail seems very strange. It's okay to come back as a new account as long as the problematic behaviors aren't repeated? Meanwhile the other alternative is disclosure of lots of information that will (in part) make it easier to track any future indiscretions, public flogging, and engagement with some sort of bureaucratic process that (knowing Wikipedia's judicial system) requires lots of kowtowing, apologizing, and self flaggelation? After which the condemned will need to overcome the baggage of being a known deviant (makes those RfAs tricky for quite a while I would think), while enduring the cloud of suspicion associated with having a known "past", and be ready for their mistakes to be called up and used to embarass and flog them by those who seek an advantage in disputes? Isn't this ass backwards?

So it's a clean record and a fresh start with a whole new identity or honesty that will result in public humiliation and a wikilife marked and stigmatized for suspicion and close inspection after a yet to be determined period in the gulag? And this is intended to keep editors on the up and up and to encourage trust? Wow.

Call me crazy but I would think incentiving full disclosure, encouraging bad actors to reform, and leading by example as far as extending good faith to those from whom we expect good faith would be a better approach. Isn't forgiveness a lot more collegial?

I've never known secrecy and subterfuge to be conducive to having participants feel respected, appreciated, valued, and trusted. And I don't see how the present system does much to promote an investment over the long term from participants who sometimes mess up badly. Is this the best way to build an encyclopedia? Maybe I'm missing the big picture and it's a way of letting editors know that (wink wink, nod nod) when they mess up seriously, if they can they should just start again so we can all avoid a lot of drama and knowing that our fellow editors sometimes cheat and do bad things. I thought the whole anonymity thing was to encourage those who want their editing kept separate from their real life identity. I didn't realize it was a way to keep all of our dirty secrets hidden from view. :) I feel silly now. Everyone else already knew this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But can't we make it just a little easier to come clean? Why do they have to apply to some board and do e-mails behind closed doors. Why can't it be like:
 * Hey John Doe, your editing is causing some problems and there seems to be a history. Can you come clean and we'll work through it. If you'd like to discuss it in private please e-mail me. You'd need to be willing to take a week off to demonstrate good faith.
 * How hard is that? I truly don't get it unless people prefer playing cat and mouse (I'm on a roll with the metaphors). A sophisticated computer user (and they don't have to be that sophisticated) would be nuts to run the gauntlet y'all have set up for those who get caught. Why bother? I don't see how making it simple to come back is equivalent to a back breaking effort on our part. It seems like what we expect those caught to do is back breaking. I don't get it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Date-Time Edit Plot
Hi CHL! Just wondering if the tool that creates those handy date-time plots is publicly available or only part of the CU bag-o-tricks? Thanks! Arakunem Talk 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at this mess!
As Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents demonstrates, we need ArbCom findings or policy changes, maybe both, before the admin corps will do what you want them to do. Jehochman Talk 08:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

War on Explosions
Given your comment at Articles for deletion/Exploding tree, I suggest that you comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to revisit the AFD discussion, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Law/tu statement
What was the unrelated statement which did not seem to be factual? Was it sent to you for publication also?Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that's a fair explanation. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Recusal
Apparently I have missed something - why are you recusing due to Wikipedia Review?I'm not sure I grasp the connection. thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Campaign promise. Steve Smith (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's handy. I was going to have to look for that. Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Though actually, now that I look at that more carefully, you explicitly said that merely involving a Wikipedia Review member would not be grounds for recusal. Steve Smith (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I recuse when it involves a Wikipedia Review issue, or where my participation with certain regulars there might give rise to the impression of favoritism. I had in mind apparent bias toward regulars, but in this case I think there would be a strong impression of bias against one of the regulars, so I thought it was still appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, although I note that Steve is correct on the details, that although some of the editors edit there, this is not a WR case per se. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool, RE: "Any disputes involving Mormonism, broadly conceived" your Mormon? I am a Return missionary (RM) myself, although I have left the church since then, and you? Ikip (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you have to phrase it that way? Now I'm picturing a Mormon mother of ... ample proportions, if you follow... and if you do, I'm sorry. I wish I didn't have the mental image either. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 01:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. I myself am Mormon, broadly conceived. I was never orthodox enough to serve a mission though. Cool Hand Luke 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the proud product of polygamy, both sides of my family ancestors. :) @KillerChihuahua: Mormon chics can be hot, not as hot as former USSR chics, but they can be really hot. @Cool Thanks for the answer. Ikip (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, very sorry for sharing the bad play on words which bounced into my head. It was based on a colloquial use of the word "broad", I am sorry to say. Again, apologies for sharing a random thought, and no intention at all for it to have any meaning whatsoever. Mea Culpa; I hope I have offended no one. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny, no need to apologize. Americans particularly have all become so politically correct. I thought it was very hilarious. :) Ikip (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ikip. Much appreciated - I'm glad someone found it humorous. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I know it's all the rage to revert each other's edits lately (it seems to happen all the time nowadays) but seriously, shouldn't discussion be used? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rollback is for vandalism. You know that.--Tznkai (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Phew
I noticed that two fucking arbitrators were on the brink of edit war. I was prepared to warn the two of you and maybe block briefly if it came to that. Thankfully, the grace of an arbitrator's brain prevailed and you decided to cut down the very tree you planted. Thank you for going about it in a gentlemanly way. @harej 04:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[redacted as in poor taste]

Tznkai has blocked The Fat Man for a week for posting this. Viridae Talk 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, and then I removed the material, as any one else should have done. Frivolous mockery involving crude sexual humor is made worse - not better, by a few guys shrugging it off. --Tznkai (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

McCarthyism
I realise you're free to revert yor own comments for whatever reason but still, that was an intriguing choice of edit summary. In general as an arbitrator and as an individual you seem to be willing to question others. Is there something different here? I would have said that McCarythism was characterised more by a lack of willingness to question and challenge "the committee" than by the opposite. Thoughts? 87.254.93.62 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on other WP pages by Physchim62
Physchim62 has undertaken to interrupt discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary here. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. I believe that (i) Physchim62 should be harshly reminded to keep his gibes to himself, and (ii) this comment of his should be reverted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Littleolive oil & User:Rd232 agree with me on the nature of this contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack by Jehochman
Admin Jehochman has interrupted the RfC on WP:Civil to support Physchim62 in an unwarranted irrelevant attack. His edit should be reverted with admonition. His action underlines a lack of objectivity on the part of Jehochman and he should recuse himself from this Case/Speed of light. This example is not the first time Jehochman has intruded to support Physchim62, as he also intervened at Physchim62's request to ban D Tombe.

These actions are not acceptable in a neutral hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's flippant remark concerning unwarranted inflammatory attacks made on Talk pages unrelated to this case is further indication that he does not have sufficient objectivity to handle Case/Speed of light, and most probably should not be an Admin at all. Brews ohare (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman also has presumed to advertise the conclusions of Case/Speed of light on WP:Civil before adjudication has occurred. Besides being a premature and gratuitous statement in that context, it indicates he has prejudged the outcome of this case. Prejudgment also is indicated by his remarks to me here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * CHL, could we put some limits on the canvassing please? There's an ArbCom case open. Any material of substance can be posted there. Jehochman Talk 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that Brews also posted the same complaints about Physchim62 and Jehochman on the talk pages of Vassyana and Hersfeld. In his proposed findings of fact at Workshop, under the heading "Editor Jehochman has misbehaved", Brews also asks for findings in the arbitration that Jehochman and Physchim62 (under the same heading) were uncivil for "interrupt[ing]" the RfC. As the RfC itself shows, Physchim62 and Jehochman commented in opposition to Brews' proposal, but did not interrupt the RfC.


 * Physchim62 and Jehochman (and I) justifiably viewed Brews's RfC as seeking an alternate forum for some of the issues in the arbitration, and commented accordingly. In Brews's proposals on the Workshop page, he proposes both a policy and a remedy that are the same in substance as his proposal at the RfC. The RfC closed with no votes in support other than Brews' (Brews closed it himself), and the discussion has been archived (I archived it because Brews neglected to do so). Brews since removed the archive tags with the edit comment "meddling"; I restored them as standard practice for a closed RfC. We'll see what happens next. Finell (Talk) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)