User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 05

User talk:Hillman/Negotiation
Hi, David, I am ready to begin now. I have left a brief proposal for you at the link above. ---CH 22:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop press! David, I thought that we both understood that  had agreed not to make complaints to admins about my user pages while our negotiation is in progress, but if so, I feel that this message left on User talk:Xoloz violate that agreement! So we are apparently right back to square one. (At my request, Xoloz protected User_talk:Hillman/Archive13 after DrL vandalized that user talk page archive by altering signed messages left by various other users.)

Can you back up and once again clarify with her whether she and Asmodeus agreed to let us negotiate in peace, and if so whether they intend to abide by this agreement? And if so, whether they would abide by any agreement we might reach after time T, should they agree to do that at time T?---CH 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In case it helps you in calming her down: to repeat several earlier statements I have made, I have never ruled out the possiblity of my voluntarily deleting some of my user subpages if you persuade me that this is appropriate. I simply don't feel that it is either proper or wise for DrL to take it upon herself to do any such thing. If this should happen, I'd prefer that it happen by mutual agreement and as the result of thoughtful discussion rather than some kind of intemperate unilateral action on her part.---CH 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

David, it is difficult to avoid fragmenting our negotiation, but can you bookmark User talk:Hillman/Negotiation and negotiate with me there? I am trying to use this user talk page only to make sure you know where to find the negotiation. ---CH 03:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David,

User:Xoloz left a helpful message on my user talk page to the effect that, as an admin, he will help see to it that no-one actually blocks me or whatever with regard to the disputed user subpage while I am negotiating with you, so I now think I might have over-reacted to User:DrL's message on his user talk page. I still think it would be helpful if you can try to obtain from her a promise to try to avoid any repetition of that kind of thing. One reason for this is that it would be reassuring to me to see some evidence that she can make a clear commitment and then keep her word, although I imagine that any agreement we might right may feature some kind of waiting period while all parties become convinced that everyone is keeping his word.

If this seems agreeable to you, and if you and others would know what to do should any party in future violate some agreement they have commited themselves to, on second thought I am willing to forge ahead with our negotiation on your personal assurance of their good behavior while we are negotiating and your understanding that they intend to keep any agreement we might reach (after they approve it, of course). If you agree, to avoid fragmenting this, you should probably copy this section from your user talk page to User_talk:Hillman/Negotiation.---CH 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hillman/Mestel Negotation
It would be nice to have your comments on my proposal about the archive pages... David Mestel(Talk) 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see User talk:Hillman/Negotiation. ---CH 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And above. Sorry this has become so fragmented despite my efforts to avoid it. ---CH 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmains case
Would you send me a link to the case you want me to take over. I'll be happy to do it. User:Pedant 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure what this case is or who I'm advocating for... User:Pedant 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Db removal in Sam Tonneslan
Thanks for your comment. I didn't know that until now. I will keep it in mind in the future. --Dead3y3 Talk page 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment ref Sam Vaknin undelete
It's ironic that Zeraeph herself is currently under Wiki suspension for personal attacks.

Your statement that "you repeatedly give as the only rationale for undeletion, that it has been "poisoned by Zeraeph"." is patently untrue. I have currently made 7 separate comments on Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25 and only two even mention Zeraeph. Most of the discusion has centered around whether Sam Vaknin self published or not. I personally discussed numerous rationale.--Penbat 08:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also calling someone a "narcissist" isnt necessarily an insult. --Penbat 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will resist the temptation of a long winded discussion with you about Zeraeph.--Penbat 15:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Germane to the Hillman negotiation
I do not wish to complicate an already delicate situation, but I felt you should be made aware of the following:

This I find tiresome, disruptive and (to be frank) crudely manipulative. I have replied, indicating that further communications should be done through a third party. The act for which Asmodeus criticized me may have been an error on my part, or it may not; to be nice, I reversed it &mdash; not that I truly believe it matters. Point is, I do not take kindly to being told, "Change your behavior or I will harass someone you respect," which stripped of a superficial veneer is the content of Asmodeus's statement, as far as I am able to parse it.

Yours truly, with hopes of better days to come, Anville 15:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh noooo!!! Say whaaat?!!!
Hi, David, I was just trying to figure out where we are, and I see that you did ask DrL about her intentions, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, even though she ought to realize that I would really, really like to see her state something completely unambiguous at this point, so that I can proceed under the assumption that you and I are not just wasting our time on this negotiation, she once again chose to avoid making an unambiguous reponse to your question.

Specifically, she wrote (emphasis added):

I'd like to assume that she meant to write (literally)


 * "I, User:DrL (and any possible present or future sockpuppets of the unique individual behind this moniker), do intend to abide after time T by a proposed agreement P, reached in negotiation between User:David.Mestel (IRL David Mestel) and User:Hillman (IRL Chris Hillman), on behalf of User:DrL, User:Asmodeus, and User:Hillman (and any possible present or future sockpuppets of these three unique individuals), should we three unique individuals agree at time T to abide by P"''

and not (literally)


 * "I, a unique individual (but I won't say which one), while using the user account User:DrL but not neccessarily while using possible present or future sockpuppet accounts, and without making any guarantees for the behavior of other unique individuals (such as my spouse) whom I might allow to use the account User:DrL, hereby state that I understand that you, User:David.Mestel do intend to abide after time T by a proposed agreement P, reached in negotiation between User:David.Mestel, IRL David Mestel, and User:Hillman, IRL Chris Hillman, on behalf of User:DrL, User:Asmodeus, and User:Hillman (and any possible present or future sockpuppets of these three unique individuals), should you agree at time T to abide by P"

but given her past history I really cannot do that. Yes, of course I realize that the second version doesn't make sense in context. My concern is that unfortunately it does make sense out of context! If it is possible to argue (however unreasonably, if this argument is placed in its full context) that she has agreed only to something which doesn't make any sense at all, she hasn't actually agreed to anything at all, has she? Bearing in mind that I believe that I have good reason to suspect she tends to be devious--- and that it doesn't matter for our purposes here whether this belief is "justified" or not, it only matters that I have this belief, because I am negotiating with you and I need to know that we can formulate some kind of guarantee that will bind even a devious individual--- do you see the nature of my concern here? If not, please study the edits by DrL which I cited at User:Hillman/Negotiation/Notes.

To avoid possible misunderstanding, I stress that I do not feel that in order for our negotiation to succeed, I must come to trust DrL (or she to trust me, for that matter), although I don't rule that out and it would be a welcome development if I decided I can WP:AGF on her part. Rather, I feel that for our negotiation to succeed, I must come to trust that any reasonable Wikipedian will have no doubt that DrL has violated agreement P, should she in fact violate P. Please recall that as we both know, community decisions at Wikipedia are not always reached under conditions of quiet contemplation on the part of all contributors, so I'd like to feel that possible violations of any agreement we might understand DrL to have agree to be bound by are likely to be evident at a glance, even to a tired random Wikipedian who has never encountered DrL before.

User:Xoloz calmed me down last week, but now her weird response (once again avoiding making an unambiguous promise for future good behavior) has me worried all over again. In fact, I think it might be a good idea if you ask Xoloz to
 * 1) examine the original version of the disputed user subpage for evidence that DrL is a unique individual whose propensity to play "logic games" and to "parse the question" has been noted by others who have observed her behavior,
 * 2) examine the edits I cited at User:Hillman/Negotiation/Notes for evidence of DrL's tendency to avoid unambiguous responses to simple questions, and for documentation of her stated suspicions about my own unicity and existence,
 * 3) take a look at this message,
 * 4) state his gut reaction.

And could you please check with DrL again?

With the example of Arthur Cayley in mind, and recalling my own training as a mathematician, please bear with me. I would like her to simply substitute the appropriate letter in the following statement (no quotation marks) and wikisign it:


 * Where:
 * L denotes the unique individual who registered and uses the Wikipedia account User:DrL, and any possible present or future sockpuppets, and anyone said unique individual might allow to use this account now or in the future,
 * A denotes the unique individual who registered and uses the Wikipedia account User:Asmodeus, and any possible present or future sockpuppets, and anyone said unique individual might allow to use this account now or in the future,
 * M denotes User:David.Mestel, IRL a unique individual named "David Mestel",
 * H denotes User:Hillman, IRL a unique individual named "Chris Hillman",
 * With regard to the negotation between H and M on behalf of H, A, L, should H and M reach a proposed agreement P, and should M then present P to A,L:
 * then I, (substitute appropriate letter here), do intend to seriously consider agreeing (after a reasonable time) to abide by P:
 * If H, A, L should agree at time T to henceforth abide by P, then I, (substitute appropriate letter here, the same letter substituted just above), do intend to in fact abide by P after time T.
 * ---(substitute appropriate wikisignature here)

You see the absurd contortions which appear to be neccessary if she refuses to acknowledge her IRL identity even to her own advocate! If you or she objects to the exact wording of the above, I guess you can go ahead and have her sign some other statement, which I will then study and declare to be acceptable to me (or not) within a reasonable time.

Please recall that she and Asmodeus have (apparently seriously) expressed concern that User:Hillman might be used by many unique individuals, and that any or all of these individuals might not be human. (Specifically, they appeared to suggest apes or computer programs, as plausible nonhuman characterizations of myself. Please see the edits cited in User:Hillman/Negotiation/Notes if you were previously unaware of this!)

For the record, IRL I am indeed Chris Hillman, a unique individual (not the only one who goes by that name, but I think we all know whom I mean). I have never let any other individual use my Wikipedia user account and have no intention of ever letting anyone do so. I have never edited the Wikipedia as an anon, and have no intention of ever doing so. I have never had any sockpuppet accounts, and I have no intention of ever having any. But I no objection to signing a statement of the above form, since it seems that your clients have expressed concern about my own unicity and existence.

I hope they won't insist that I swear on the King James Bible that I am not only a unique individual, but a human individual! Suffice it to say that I consider myself bound by the same moral obligations as any good citizen of any civilized society. I really think that is good enough.

(But I'd feel much better if you could tell me that she has acknowledged her IRL identity to you by confidential email, incidently. I don't have any doubt that I know who she is, but I'd like to know that she has unambiguously stated the simple truth at least to her own advocate!)

Hmm... there's probably a computer science paper somewhere on how anonymous parties can negotiate a binding resolution even in a world of sockpuppetry, but my mind rebels at the thought of searching for it... seems like this is already taking too much of our time.

Again, I am not usually so mistrustful, but I feel that I have learned the hard way not to assume good faith in the case of DrL. Right or wrong, my current mistrust of her good intentions is something we both need to take into account if we are to negotiate.---CH 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

David, FYI:

I am currently trying open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience concerning the possible eventual disposition of some of my other "Dig" user subpages: I explicitly exempted all the other "Dig" pages from this discussion and mentioned that I am negotiating with you re the eventual disposition of one of these other pages. Since I have made it clear that this does not concern your clients, I trust that this discussion will not alarm them. ---CH 01:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Hillman/Dig/Bogdanov re banned users from the Bogdanov affair
 * User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc re permabanned user and socks
 * User:Hillman/Dig/Licorne re permabannded user and socks
 * User:Hillman/Dig/Sarfatti re permabanned user
 * User:Hillman/Dig/Salsman re and

David:

User:Byrgenwulf has just notified me of a new RfC, Requests for comment/Asmodeus. FYI, I had nothing to do with that and didn't learn about it until just now over at my user talk page! We probably need to discuss how this affects our negotiation. (Hopefully, not at all.)

I haven't heard from you for a week or so, incidently, so just to be clear: AFAIK we are still negotiating the ground rules for the negotation proper, i.e. we are still talking and all mutual agreements we have made to date are still in force. Please let me know ASAP if this is not the case.---CH 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

RoLL
I've always opposed doing something like that- it seems too tabloidish. People who want to read about arbitration will read the report, no matter what. Ral315 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hillman
Hi,

Yep, he did; I would have alerted you, but I assumed he would do so. This is a dispute resolved by departure, sadly. Best wishes, Xoloz 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, it happens. No biggie.  Ral315 (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilate
It was not a mistake. I deleted wrong info. Sait Pilate is not Potius Pilatus.--87.64.8.195 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Major erros merit no discussion.--87.64.8.195 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now edited the edit summary. Hope you are now happy Master.!!!--87.64.8.195 21:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

LaurentDion
Hey David!

Dion contacted me two weeks back about the possibility of getting his account unblocked. I see that he has also contacted you. We've had some communication back and forth, and I was struck that he's been calm and rational throughout my communication with him. There was no "An evil admin blocked me"-type attitude that I see so prevalent with other blocked users (and I see a lot of them). He also stated he still wants to edit art-related articles on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can coordinate our user advocate efforts here?

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

year edits
so Rebecca continues to mass revert my edits, not caring a twit what you or other administrators say. What can you do about it? Hmains 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for a beginning Hmains 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hoax article"
The article was actually a hoax, and it reached good article status. Ral315 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-25 Bae Yong Joon
This case seems to have no updates since the 26th of August. Does it need to be closed, or are you still working on it? Thanks! ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, have a good day. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote request
Please Vote, as per wiktionary the correct spelling is anti-Semitic NOT Antisemitic. 67.70.68.51 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice
Hi David,

I found you on the advocacy listing. I am new to Wikipedia and just been through a very trying experience (as follows -- I'll try to keep it short!)
 * There has been an article describing my company (XPLANE) up at Wikipedia since 2004. I did NOT write the article.
 * About a week ago I saw the article and added a link to my personal blog (I am the founder and CEO of the company and the blog is well respected in my field, which is an emerging discipline which combines communications, information design, and visualization.
 * A Wikipedian deleted the link to my blog, and then listed the entire article for deletion
 * I tried to improve the article to demonstrate "noteworthiness" in an attempt to address the complaint.
 * The same Wikipedian then listed the article for deletion again, this time on the grounds that the article read like an advertisement. I did not get the feeling this person was working in good faith to improve the article.
 * I made further attempts to improve the article, after which the same Wikipedian flagged the article for "non-neutrality."
 * Meanwhile, a discussion was progressing on the deletion page between Wikipedians who seemed to have no knowledge of my company's discipline/field.
 * Concerned, I then made an appeal on my blog for anyone who felt the company "notable" to make a comment, as well as supply any relevant credentials (I later found this is frowned upon at Wikipedia, but I could think of no other way to inject knowledgable experts into the discussion.
 * Voting to "keep" were several respected authorities including:
 * The author of a book on e-Learning
 * The artist in residence at the Charles M. Schultz
 * A designer with ten years experience
 * A graphic facilitator with 20 years experience


 * Even after requested to do so, NONE of the Wikipedians voting to delete offered any relevant expertise or experience.
 * I also offered to submit to any reasonable peer review that anyone would suggest, as the field of information design is small and my company is well known.
 * Evidence presented for notability included:
 * Exper opinions (above)
 * An article in CNN.com
 * Numerous interviews with the founder (myself)
 * References to conferences where I have been an invited speaker

My personal notes: It feels to me as if Wikipedia experience trumped industry experience and expertise. I also felt that my initial attempts to redress the issue were met with curt citations rather than in any spirit of inclusion. It seems that there is a war against "vandals" going on and somehow I was placed on the side of the vandals. This is merely a feeling, but I feel as if I was treated as an invader from the very initiation of this exchange.
 * The article was marked for deletion by an admin.
 * I went to the admin's talk page and asked him to explain his rationale.
 * His answer: The commenters voting to keep were not Wikipedia contributors, which he deemed "suspicious.

Net: The article has now been deleted.

I hope you will have some advice to offer about how to proceed.

Thanks in advance, DaveDgray xplane 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chaguanas
hi david, the user has attempted to edit the page again without discussing with you. just letting you know as you are my advocate. thank you. Ryorye 02:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed your unilateral actions back in August. I asked you to explain how you determined that some people were "significantly more notable" than others. When you made no attempt to answer the question or take the argument anywhere forward, I took it that you had dropped the matter. To wait until I was not around much and then change the article, without explaining your methodology seems like a rather underhand action which shows a shocking lack of good faith. Guettarda 05:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw this edit as well. I find your statement "since Guettarda is no longer engaged in discussion" incredibly offensive - you were the one who failed to engage in a discussion. I checked regularly for over a week for your response. You failed to respond, I missed your edit somewhere in the 3000 or so pages on my watchlist at the time - and you have the nerve to describe my actions as "no longer engaging in discussion"? It isn't ok to refuse to answer a fundamental issue, and then act as if I am somehow the one not engaging in the discussion. Guettarda 05:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied 15 minutes later - Yes, you replied, but you made no attempt to answer my question. I provided you with a (highly incomplete) list of 59 names, and I asked to you present a rationale to separate those who were significantly more notable from those who were significantly less notable.  You replied with some nonsense about google hits.  Now obviously that was not an attempt to answer my question, and it was obviously not a suitable tool for non-US topics.  So I was waiting for a real answer.  You made no attempt to provide a real answer - in fact I am still waiting for a real answer.
 * If you don't answer someone's question for two weeks and then change the page, without bothering to address the issue, it is sneaky. It is especially underhand to make such a change while you believe the person isn't around.  But the underlying point is that I complied with your request and you failed to follow up on my reply to your request.  And then you changed to page to your favoured version.  Please answer the question.  Guettarda 16:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't expect psychic powers, just reading comprehension. Is that too much too expect?  Guettarda 19:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading the question you have yet to respond to at Talk:Chaguanas. Which is, after all, the whole point of rhis interaction between us.  Guettarda 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...
I fixed your link here, I hope you don't mind :) &mdash; D e on555talk desk 06:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry wrong person! &mdash; D e on555talk desk 06:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

request for something
I now have another editor following my work here and there, even putting year links in articles I never took them out of. Please see my talk page. I am losing interest in doing much editing at all, given the abuse I seem to have to take, but which no one should see on WP. Thanks Hmains 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
David, I really need your advice. The arbcom are on the verge of inappropriately banning me and Asmodeus from editing certain articles. The evidence is entirely fabricated. I have been wrongly blocked twice (the second block, a little further down the page was a little more egregious and even had a total stranger calling it bogus). Amazingly, this has been for innocuous edits like putting material in chronological order, putting back long-standing content that dropped out without explanation, or changing qualifiers like "all" to "some" when "all" was unsourced.

These actions were instigated by Felonious Monk and those bogus blocks used to propose a ban to my account. I would like to impress upon you that all of my edits have been good faith edits and all strove to maintain balance and NPOV. I have been very careful so this is extremely transparant and totally unjustified. Can you please give me some advice? TIA --DrL 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, David. I wanted to mention that they are banning Asmodeus from editing the Christopher Langan article, but he hasn't edited that article more than a couple of times and not in the last five months. Can you help me look into this. That just sounds ludicrous yet everyone is acting like that is a perfectly fine thing to do. I have to say that the things that go on here just defy logic. I am hoping that you might be able to help me do something about this. Thanks for any support that you might be able to give us. --DrL 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion
As I showed on the Administrators's Noticeboard, Laurent has been around for some time, and has shown himself to be a single purpose account here to do nothing but disrupt and push his own agenda. His abusive email comments to me since his block has done nothing but confirm this. --InShaneee 19:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to put up with that, I'd agree to it on two conditions: 1., he doens't start pursuing any irrational goals again (ie, getting his username removed from old talk page archives, removing evidence that an afd ever happened about his page, ect). 2., He's instantly reblocked should he decide to jump over your head and begin his old garbage again. This includes the anti-wiki rants and protest poems he kept trying to post on his talk page. Sound good? --InShaneee 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of the initial participants in the edit war that precipitated Laurentdion's blocking, I have to say that you are saints for trying to work it out. Check back on the old AFDs for Earth Man and Dion Laurent, and the discussion pages before you commit to this work though. There were a number of people with good intentions involved who interpreted Wiki's guidelines appropriately, but it didn't do any good. I would also ask why he is deserving of the kind of favored treatment you are offering, which amounts to both a personal editor/nanny, and a second chance when it is hard to see why one is appropriate. Richardjames444 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, though as I said before, when you say 'his work', please do include any of his prior work on this site, as long as making sure he brings any concerns he has with other editors to you first. --InShaneee 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate confirmation from him on-wiki somewhere as a matter of record, but I trust you've gotten it properly. He's unblocked, and his page is unprotected. --InShaneee 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, have you heard anything further from this user? For someone who campaigned so fiercely to get unblocked, he doesn't seem to eager to actually edit. --InShaneee 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)