User talk:David.Mestel/Archive 07

7th Archive of my talk page:

Sarah Hanson-Young DRV
Multiple sources now provided in DRV, please have another look. Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8 â coe l acan t a lk  â 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. =) â coe l acan t a lk  â 10:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
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 05:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Freeper test
Generally on the money. Statements by uninvolved parties go on the talk page rather than the main page. Who is "involved" is sometimes a judgement call based on what they say in their statements. I probably would have kept more of the statements on the main page than brad did, but fewer than you did. That wouldn't cause any real grief, though, as someone who wanted to be listed as a party can always move their statement themself or ask a clerk. Thatcher131 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Arbitration case
Thankyou for informing me.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

I also request that user:Islescape be called to the case.His testimoney may be necessary as he has also been part of this ongoing dispute.Please do inform him.He may not be confident if i told him,but if a member of the Arbcom tells him,he may re-consider and come.Thanks.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

Okay thanks for explaining this.I will see if I can list Islescape.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

Thanks for for your note on my talk page. One user informed me by email since I don't visit Wikipedia anymore. You can read by brief on the arbitration page. I can be contacted by email address on my page. Siddiqui 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 10:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

just a clarification
Are you reffering to the evidence section specificly or the statements section? I do release that I indeed did expand too much on the statement section.But in any case I've just gone back and cut down on the evidence section.

I just want to make sure which section I should cut down further on.Thanks.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ


 * I've just reduced the size/length and number of diffs - is it satisfactory? Rama's arrow  16:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure,sure anywhere is fine with me as long as the arbitrators and other users can see it.Thanks.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

India-Pakistan Evidence
Hi, I haven't had time to add my evidence, but plan to do so today. Will that be OK? I will keep the text to under 1000 words. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  Â«TalkÂ»  16:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: India-Pakistan evidence
Is the reduction of evidence important? I believe these are the little things which over a longer period of time cause furstrations and, therefore, all these little things should be included in the evidence to draw a broader picture of trends of sneaky violations. Szhaider 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIGN arb reports
I think you should update the arb reports as the are in progress as it seems as though you follow the cases as they occur anyway. Eg, the Starwood case, some of the parties have been banned as sockpuppets for a month now, but it still has "Party X ....." in the present tense. I guess I would be more inclined to read the reports (supposing I wasn't an arbitrator) if it provided more of a running call of the action :) (I tend to read the new features, but perhaps that is my personal preference for writing showing). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
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 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Arb
''Is it OK to move some of the longer and more pointless arguments to the talk page, leaving notes saying where to find them? David Mestel(Talk) 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)''
 * Civil discussion of the proposals is always welcome. Discussion that wanders from the main point can be moved to the talk pages, although in some cases it may be better simply to delete.  Clerk-Note is a useful way of tagging comments made in your "official" role.  I tend not to use it too much as the participants usually know who I am and what my role is in the case; but of course if people start objecting to your actions you can use it as needed. Thatcher131 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Pipe trick
Hey, if you ever get to screwing around with that, you should also make it so that ../Foo, using the pipe trick, would display as Foo, not "../Foo" (try it on a sub-page; it won't work on this page). This would help out with the Signpost immensely. Ral315 Â» 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
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 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L.
Thank you as always for writing up the ArbCom case report in the Signpost. I would like to suggest that references to allegations of stalking, harassment, or any other forms of off-wiki misconduct should generally be omitted from these write-ups. In one of the pending cases, a workshop proposal was by one of the parties that there be an off-wiki investigation that would not have been appropriate, and when I pointed this out he observed that the Signpost had already publicized the allegation of off-wiki conduct that he wanted investigated. It would be best to avoid this situation in the future. If you have any questions about this, please e-mail me. Thank you very much. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan-India arbcomm case
Its pretty much decided what is going to happen to me. So I just wanted to ask for a quick and urgent favour.

Could you point out to the committee that I am on a shared IP used by many people. If my account only could be banned, and if anyone discovers I am editing again, they can ban the IP. Thank you. -- Unre4L  ïºï¹¸ï»§ïº®ï®®ïºï»  UT 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing RfAr India-Pakistan
Per discussion on WP:AC/CN, you should go ahead and close Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan at the appropriate time after it has 4 net votes to close (it's at 3/0 right now). It would probably be best if you could do it at a time when Thatcher131 or Cowman109 or I is online so we can implement the bans at the same time. Let us know on the noticeboard if you'll be around tonight or tomorrow morning after the 4th vote comes in. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * David, good job. Congratulations on your first case! Thatcher131 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Confirming what I told you at the time, you did an excellent job, and thanks for your help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all, and especially to NYB for his help. David Mestel(Talk) 07:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgent last request- Please reply
My last request would me for you to disengage the autoblock.

Please try to understand. This is only my temporary IP. I dont mind you banning my real IP. I can promise you I wont be editing at all. Please also take into consideration the "offences". I am not a vandal. I really wish you to take my last request seriously. I am asking you as a friend, as I have always had my best intentions on Wikipedia, and I dont deserve a dishonourable discharge. please let me know what you can do for me. -- Unre4L  ïºï¹¸ï»§ïº®ï®®ïºï»  UT 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no autoblock applied. Thatcher131 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
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 06:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost
HI there,

I believe you are the author of [Signpost/2007-03-05/Arbitration report], though correct me if I am wrong. Can I ask why the current case review: Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review has been removed - it is still currently in the voting page. Cheers Lethaniol 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Na not a clot - we all forget from time to time lol. Thanks for the quick reply. Cheers Lethaniol 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration closing
Sorry, but I was prodded by an arbitrator to close Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia promptly, so I went ahead and did it. Please keep your eye on the chart and there will be another case for you in a few days. Thanks again for your continuing interest, and best regards. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
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 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Review work for Version 0.7
Hi David, may I bid you a somewhat overdue welcome to the Wikipedia 1.0 team! You may be pleased to hear that our first CD release will be coming out in late March. Now I'm wanting to get reviewing fully under way at Release Version Nominations, and I see that you've signed on to help. To help new reviewers, I've written a reviewing FAQ page. Can you take a look at the to do list, and see if you can help us out? If you have any questions, please leave me a note. Many thanks, Walkerma 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
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 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

URGENT Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence
I don't mean to step on anybody's toes by asking for assistance from a clerk not attached to my Arbitration case, but Bakaman has just deleted the Evidence presented by SebastianHelm. JFD 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FloNight took care of it while I was contacting you. Thanks anyway JFD 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
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 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
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 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
Sorry. I didn't knew the rules, as this is my first arbitration at which I participate (I've requested an other one a while ago but it was rejected). Should I understand that everything I have to say (including a direct answer at some other person's statement), I should do only in my subpage?--MariusM 11:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
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 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta RFAR
Could you please tell Gangsta to cease threaded discussion on the Evidence page. --Ideogram 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the middle of the night in the UK where David is located, so I've left Certified.Gangsta a note about this. Newyorkbrad 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi David,

I have collected staggering amount of diffs to be used as evidence and already it looks like am at the 1000 words limit.

On the other hand I am sure ArbCom would like to see the evidence for policy violation (edit-war, 3rr, WP:RS, point, not, NPA, AGF and more) so how do we do it ? best, Zeq 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta arbcom remedy
''Wrt your proposal for remedy number five on the Workshop page, would you mind if I changed "to be blocked" to "is banned", as it's impossible to be blocked from an individual page? David Mestel(Talk) 14:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)''

Yes please! Thanks a lot. --Sumple (Talk) 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Hi David,

Yes I know but I was hoping for some leeway since the subject is important and it is critical to show a long long pattern of policy violations. This is needed because some argue that the only violations by Zero was to enforce his admin role or as a result of interaction with me and that his violations are minor. It is therefor important to bring evidence from many conflicts/edit-war - most of which are from articles I do not edit. I still have a list of hundreds of diffs showing his violations - maybe you can set a different page for added evidence and I will place it there not to clog the main page. Zeq 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will add more diffs and start to work on making the whole presentation shorter. Zeq 03:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
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 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
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 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram
Hi David, a user has posted a message on my talk page about enforcement in the abovementioned ArbCom case. Apparently, User:Certified.Gangsta, who is on revert parole, is still edit-warring: see contributions. I haven't looked through all the edits, but the two edits on Demographics of Taiwan look like violating the condition of his parole.

Anyway, what are the procedures in case of such a violation? --Sumple (Talk) 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction many times. See here, here, here, here, and here. In addition, Certified.Gangsta has made personal attacks. This is a flagrant violation of the ArbCom's Final decision and needs to be enforced. Regards, LionheartX 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamming talkpages isn't the best way to achieve your cause.--Certified.Gangsta 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding because David mentioned he has reduced wiki-time for a few days. This particular incident, as you may know, has already been addressed by an administrator after discussion on ANI. For future reference, please see WP:AE, the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, although ANI is sometimes used in perceived emergencies. Newyorkbrad 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram
Hi David, a user has posted a message on my talk page about enforcement in the abovementioned ArbCom case. Apparently, User:Certified.Gangsta, who is on revert parole, is still edit-warring: see contributions. I haven't looked through all the edits, but the two edits on Demographics of Taiwan look like violating the condition of his parole.

Anyway, what are the procedures in case of such a violation? --Sumple (Talk) 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction many times. See here, here, here, here, and here. In addition, Certified.Gangsta has made personal attacks. This is a flagrant violation of the ArbCom's Final decision and needs to be enforced. Regards, LionheartX 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Spamming talkpages isn't the best way to achieve your cause.--Certified.Gangsta 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding because David mentioned he has reduced wiki-time for a few days. This particular incident, as you may know, has already been addressed by an administrator after discussion on ANI. For future reference, please see WP:AE, the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, although ANI is sometimes used in perceived emergencies. Newyorkbrad 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity
Noticed you haven't edited in a week. Hoping everything's all right with you :) Ral315 Â» 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah! Not a problem; someone'll take it, I'm sure.  Take it easy, and jump back in when the real-life stuff isn't a problem.  Ral315 Â» 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
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 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration
Hi David. In 23 April you wrote to User:William Mauco to submit evidence for the arbitration case regarding Transnistria through e-mail. As I am also involved in this case, I'm asking you if you received such evidence, if yes, if there is some reason why the evidence was not yet added in the arbitration case and if is possible for me to know what data was presented. Thanks.--MariusM 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
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 05:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agriprocessors
Thank you for your oversight. This is not the best article, but it's mine and it's fully sourced and I agree with others' additions/revisions, and yes, I've lived near Postville and Eastern Parkway both. The vandal's suggestions are absurd. This article needs routine surveillance, which I do. But admin surveillance is also needed, sometimes to the point of protection. A block may be in order.--MarkTwainOnIce 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of said article
Agriprocessors no longer shows up on my machine as an article, tho' a google does display references to same. I suspect the article has been deleted by a highly-placed admin. Hey! This was a pro-Agriprocessors article, inasmuch as they supply large employment in Allamakee County, Iowa. It's as if the admin wanted public trouble over this deletion. This event will be reported to the Waukon, Iowa Standard as one of those strange Wikipedia things. I suspect I will be blocked for writing this (copy made). Is Wikipedia really a conspiracy? âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkTwainOnIce (talk â¢ contribs).

Controversies
The Wikimedia Foundation received complaints about this article. It seems to oscillate between a self-laudatory article about a non notable business, and an article mostly formed of a "controversy" section where there is not a single link to a mainstream news source. All is formed of links to activist sites, and original research. Neither of these is tolerable. David.Monniaux 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article, do you agree with my assessment above? It's not that I'm against controversies being reported on Wikipedia, but I think we should stick to controversies that have had at least some quantity of media exposure, not just about any controversy mounted by local activists. David.Monniaux 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Foo. Agriprocessors has been determined by Wikipedia to be a protected industry, which shall have power to induce torture to any animal they chose to torture. Obviously no, but this process, and the admins' deleting process is what it amounts to. --MarkTwainOnIce 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

EFA picture
The Ministry of Defense has reorganized its site... The picture is probably no longer online there. WikimÃ©dia France is working on having the government change the copyright status of public works, but it's going to be a complex process. (Museums want to make money off photos, administrations want to control their image by selecting who they allow to use their photos, etc.) David.Monniaux 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello to you
Mmmm... Well... my first time trying to edit something on this. I would hope that you would trust the veracity of my assertion, given what you know of my position in the school and the work in question. However, as you're the expert here, I'll defer to you and find some way of publishing the permission. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by craigbmorrison (talk â¢ contribs).

I think it was epoch-making in a few ways. Most importantly because it was the first free school for the working classes in Cambridge, something the colleges and university were dead against. It was an important change in the development of state education as opposed to charitable or church-led elementary education. Also, in 1971, when the school became a comprehensive, it was a major change not only to education in the town, but also a marker for state education again - moving to a wholly comprehensive system was a big thing for a town like Cambridge to do so early on. Craigbmorrison 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)User:craigbmorrison

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.
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 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Arb case note
I just switched templates on the Badlydrawnjeff case for the listing of Tony Sidaway because of the listing of Tony with admin when he is currently not an admin nor is his administrative actions the locus of the case.â RyÅ«lÃ³ng ( ç«é¾ ) 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, sorry. I assumed that he was one because he used to be, and because he was closing AfDs, DRVs, etc. David Mestel(Talk) 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Please, refrain from preventing people from working on wikipedia. If ArbCom members are unable to work constructively in protecting article from pov-pushers and vandals, they cannot complain from the consequences. If you don't agree with my revert, I suggest you find evidence and clearly explicit written rules that prevent me from deleting this. I have written alone 3 featured articles on the Palestinian problem on wp:fr (see fr:user:ceedjee/articles and ArbCom behaviour makes me think the only issue to get an good encyclopedia is Citizendium. Alithien 08:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request
I am David-Mestel on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/David.Mestel. Thanks. --David Mestel(Talk) 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BDJ Workshop
Hello! I see you're the clerk listed on this case. I'd like, with your permission, to do some light refactoring on the Workshop page. I do not want to remove anything, I was just planning to move some of the sub-sections around to try and group like topics.

For example, Propose Remedies currently looks like this: 5.3 Proposed remedies 5.3.1 Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole 5.3.2 Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned. 5.3.3 Badlydrawnjeff is warned 5.3.4 Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole 5.3.5 Doc glasgow desysopped 5.3.6 Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.6.1 Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction 5.3.7 Doc glasgow placed on civility parole 5.3.8 Doc glasgow strongly cautioned 5.3.9 Doc glasgow admonished 5.3.10 JzG admonished 5.3.11 JzG placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.12 JzG placed on adminstrative restriction 5.3.13 H placed on civility parole 5.3.14 General caution 5.3.15 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 5.3.16 Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review 5.3.17 Badlydrawnjeff restricted 5.3.18 Badlydrawnjeff admonished 5.3.19 Violetriga desysopped 5.3.19.1 Violetriga desysopped for 10 days 5.3.20 Admins blocking Jeff admonished 5.3.21 Policy development 5.3.22 Speedy closures 5.3.22.1 Speedy closures 5.3.23 Precedence 5.3.24 The QZ article shall be restored 5.3.24.1 The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.25 JzG desysopped 5.3.26 JzG placed on civility parole 5.3.27 Keeping of status quo on QZ   5.3.28 Technical investigation 5.3.29 Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article 5.3.30 Execution of policy

What I would change it to would look like this: 5.3 Proposed remedies 5.3.1 Badlydrawnjeff 5.3.1.1 Badlydrawnjeff placed on civility parole 5.3.1.2 Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned. 5.3.1.3 Badlydrawnjeff is warned 5.3.1.4 Badlydrawnjeff banned from deletion discussions 5.3.1.5 Badlydrawnjeff banned from Wikipedia:Deletion review 5.3.1.6 Badlydrawnjeff restricted 5.3.1.7 Badlydrawnjeff admonished 5.3.1.8 Badlydrawnjeff restricted to one DRV nom per article 5.3.2 Tony Sidaway 5.3.2.1 Tony Sidaway placed on civility parole 5.3.3 Doc glasgow 5.3.3.1 Doc glasgow desysopped 5.3.3.2 Doc glasgow placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.3.3 Doc glasgow placed on administrative restriction 5.3.3.4 Doc glasgow placed on civility parole 5.3.3.5 Doc glasgow strongly cautioned 5.3.3.6 Doc glasgow admonished 5.3.4 JzG 5.3.4.1 JzG admonished 5.3.4.2 JzG placed on administrative 1RR 5.3.4.3 JzG placed on adminstrative restriction 5.3.4.4 JzG desysopped 5.3.4.5 JzG placed on civility parole 5.3.5 H          5.3.5.1 H placed on civility parole 5.3.6 Violetriga 5.3.6.1 Violetriga desysopped 5.3.6.2 Violetriga desysopped for 10 days 5.3.7 QZ Article 5.3.7.1 The QZ article shall be restored 5.3.7.2 The QZ article shall be relisted at AfD 5.3.7.3 Keeping of status quo on QZ   5.3.8 General caution 5.3.9 Admins blocking Jeff admonished 5.3.10 Policy development 5.3.11 Speedy closures 5.3.11.1 Speedy closures 5.3.12 Precedence 5.3.13 Technical investigation 5.3.14 Execution of policy

And I'd basically do this per section. I was just thinking the workshop page has grown so much in such little time, this might make it easier for people to find their way around. I don't want to do any large scale formatting changes without running it by you first...not everyone likes this sort of thing. Anyway, while "refactor" can be a scary word...I'm not intending to change any content, just move things around as-is to organize the page better.

If you think this would be OK, let me know...or else I'll just keep my mitts off. Thanks! --InkSplotch 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems a very good idea in this exceptional circumstance. I think that the principles and FoFs are probably fine as they are, though. David Mestel(Talk) 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks...I've gone and updated the Remedies section now. We'll see if anyone screams.  I agree the principles are fine as-is (at least, I can't see how they could be tidied any), but I think the FoFs could be cleaned up a bit.  It'll take me a bit to figure out how...they're more intertwined than the Remedies were.  Let me think on it, and if I have an idea, I'll let you know. --InkSplotch 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the FoF section is tricky, but I think not insurmountable. Here's the order I'd put it in: 5.2 Proposed Findings of Fact 5.2.1 Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.2 Effects of Wikipedia's growth and status 5.2.3 Biographies of living persons is policy 5.2.3.1 People notable for a single event 5.2.3.2 The example of Rachel Marsden 5.2.4 WP:NOT 5.2.5 WP:BLP 5.2.6 Deletion review has not reflected community ideals regarding consensus 5.2.7 Deletion review has not resulted in the proper results at an acceptable rate 5.2.8 Consensus and deletions of articles 5.2.9 Moral and Ethical nature of the project and expectations of participants 5.2.10 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.1 Badlydrawnjeff and BLP 5.2.10.2 Badlydrawnjeff 5.2.10.3 Badlydrawnjeff's participation in deletion discussions 5.2.10.4 Badlydrawnjeff Block Inappropriate 5.2.10.5 Unjustified block of badlydrawnjeff disapproved, disregarded 5.2.10.6 Badlydrawnjeff actively promotes the misunderstanding and misapplication of WP:BLP 5.2.11 Tony Sidaway 5.2.11.1 Tony Sidaway has a long history of incivility 5.2.12 Doc glasgow 5.2.12.1 Doc glasgow has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.13 JzG 5.2.13.1 JzG has made a number of improper deletions 5.2.14 H           5.2.14.1 H has been incivil 5.2.15 Violetriga 5.2.15.1 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.2 Violetriga has wheel warred 5.2.15.3 Violetriga has demonstrated a high degree of insensitivity with respect to the Biographies of living persons policy 5.2.15.4 Violetriga restored BLP deletions 5.2.15.5 Violetriga abused her admin tools 5.2.16 Swatjester 5.2.16.1 Swatjester wheel warred 5.2.17 Nick 5.2.17.1 Nick wheel warred 5.2.18 Night Gyr 5.2.18.1 Night Gyr 5.2.19 Phil Sandifer 5.2.19.1 Phil Sandifer wheel warred 5.2.20 QZ Article 5.2.20.1 Status of QZ at the time of deletion 5.2.20.2 Early closures were improper 5.2.20.3 QZ          5.2.20.4 The use of WP:BLP 5.2.20.5 Deletion rationale 5.2.20.6 Additional recent examples 5.2.20.7 The "Do no harm" concept is often flawed in use 5.2.20.8 Deletion of QZ was proper 5.2.20.9 QZ          5.2.20.10 QZ And of course I would also scan the entire page for anything like "...relating to my proposed principle#xx above..." and update those links, as well. I did that for the Remedies section, but didn't find any. That's the trickiest bit...these workshop pages can get really self-referential.

So what do you think? Would this be an improvement, or would it disrupt the original flow of ideas? That's my biggest fear, because in FoF more than anything, entries tend to 'build' on one another...but I think this structure would preserve that. --InkSplotch 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right: the added clarity outweighs any possible loss of continuity, because the workshop page is so long. David Mestel(Talk) 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, all done. Hope I've added some clarity to the proceedings. And thank you for the Barnstar, too. --InkSplotch 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
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 07:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
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 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

proposal may need to be moved
Hi David,I made a proposal in the enforcement section in the workshop of the case and an arbitrator indicated that it may need to be moved to the principals section.Could you please take a look and maybe move it if necessary?Thanks alot.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

quick request
Hey there David,I have a quick request.I just need you to let the arbitrators know that recent evidence from outside users has just come in on the evidence section on the case.I also posted some new evidence a few days ago.(From the looks of it,they haven't checked anything there).

Some new users have just posted there as well,so please do inform the arbitrators. That's all I needed to say.

Thanks alot.--Nadirali ÙØ§Ø¯Ø±Ø§ÙÛ

Blake Ahearn
why did you remove the information on Blake Ahearn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkJones55 (talk • contribs).

Re:Arden Wohl
Re:Arden Wohl...Ms Wohl was recently featured in Vogue (July edition) keep in mind the majority of votes for deletion was while the article was still being written and not completed..thanks please reconsider undelete. at least unsalt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.205.213.42 (talk • contribs). }