User talk:Grunt/archive7

tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell
You or some other arbitrator should have interfered earlier, when Paul Beardsell started to change other users' edits of the Arbitration page. It's senseless to ask a sysop, when it happens on the Arbitration page. And Paul Beardsell should have asked you, or another arbitrator to change the title. It would have been much more easier to discuss before making these changes. I didn't see any evidence in what I'm accused before starting the case, why the case was made against me, in addition to Paul Beardsell?Tkorrovi 02:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All cases involve investigation of all involved parties. The case is named as it is because there are only two major involved disputants, and allegations are directed at both. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * You talk about investigation, but I asked about accusation. person1 vs person2 means that both parties are accused, but in the majority of cases here there is only one user name in the title, and that means that only one person is accused, and accusing and making a judgement against the plaintiff, requires a separate arbitration case with an accusation against that person. Is it so or is it not?Tkorrovi 02:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The title "User A vs. User B" usually implies that User A is bringing the case against User B and that there are accusations being brought forward by both sides during the course of a request. Evidence is permitted in support of specific actions if it has merit to the dispute central to the case, and may result in remedies being passed that are not against the original respondent (see e.g. Snowspinner vs. Lir, where Lir filed the original request and was subsequently banned for a year, or Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce, where the petitioners themselves were warned against making personal attacks). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:33, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
 * Then the case submitted by me is different from person1 vs person2 cases, because before opening the case there was no evidence provided on the arbitration page explaining in what I am accused. Therefore I ask to remove my name from the title, and if some finds an evidence to accuse me, start a separate arbitration case against me. I understand that the result may not be different, but it's necessary for the matter of correctness, just otherwise starting the case that way means that there was an evidence of accusation brought against me just because of the fact of opening the case that way, but there was no such evidence before opening the case. Such arbitration gives a possibility to judge a person without guilt, because the way how the case was opened implies that he is potentially guilty, this is formally wrong.Tkorrovi 03:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * lol Matt Stan 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia
Wow! That was an excellent April Fool's Day hoax. It really had me worried. &rarr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   04:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Damn, that was quite a brilliant joke .. lmao but the price tag of $140 million is a big giveaway, wikimedia foundation is NOWHERE near that number. LG-&#29356;&#22812;&#21449; 04:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pictures in the Pope John Paul II article
Please consider contributing your opinion in this Talk section dealing with the perceived preference of one lead picture over another. Thanks. --AladdinSE 05:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

different section
I'd like to ask you to account for your votes on the proposed decision talk page of my arb case. Thank you. Everyking 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered questions re Tkorrovi vs Psb777
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision. I have suggested a preliminary sifting of the allegations be done. I have also asked for info re appealing the composition of the ArbCom for my case. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider's arbcom case
I think you may have corrected the wrong proposed decision in this case. As it currently stands you are saying that a 1 month ban might be too harsh, but that you support a 3 month ban if thst doesn't pass. It would make more sense if the 1 and 3 months were swapped. Thryduulf 02:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A one month ban may be too harsh. A three month ban is defintely too harsh and I will only support it if there is no alternative. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Template:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat vs. Fadix
I'm very interested in your reaction to an ArbCom request via a template. &mdash; Davenbelle 00:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox in user namespace
I couldn't find an answer to the questions I had about a sandbox in a user's namespace, so I thought I would ask you. I read About_the_Sandbox and thought I would try making my own sandbox. I made /sandbox, and then moved the page to /Sandbox. Do these two pages get cleared every 12 hours? Are these two pages really the sandbox, or are they really just an extra page that is labelled as "sandbox"? Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 15:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's your userspace. Do whatever you want with it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:14, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Mediation
I am in arbitration becuase I had no sign of mediation or anything over a month. My dispute is not why what is POV or NPOV, my problem is users not following No Personal Attacks, at a point the discussion was completely about how horible I was and why I should be ignored. I want them to present their cases one by one. I declare unverifiable information as NPOV on contraversial articles. I just dont want to be unsulted or pushed around anymore. Two users have been declareing almost everything I add to wikipedia as POV and reverting. Spelling fixes are declared pov. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration request is not related to the conflict of ideas between me and fadix but his general ownership of the article and his general communication with me. If user stops, no need to do anything. Also two other users Stereotek, and Davenbelle have been reverting my edits ever since they met me in Armenian Genocide, their user contribution together is based around mine. Call me a paranoid if you like, but I think they are trying to punish me for my views. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you leave people to read and judge by themselves? Why have you to to go over members pages one by one and lobbying for your cases?


 * This is not your dispute, this is my dispute and other peoples dispute. Talking of “unverifiable” material, you have yourself reverted and added unverifiable materials yourself, but when I quote works etc. you claim historians are irrelevant and their words should not be taken as truth in what regards history. When they are verifiable, you don't want them, when they are unverifiable but are your POV, you play with peoples nerves with editing and reverting wars. Like just recently when you've been blocked for 24 hours.


 * I apologize to Grunt for having answered in your members page. I just have enough of this cheap trick to go track members, mediators, arbitrators etc. and lobby against people whom disagree with him(Coolcat). Fadix 20:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still think you should reconsider your vote. or At least confirm what your standing is so I dont bother you. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 01:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Skyranger
Mmmm.... Smells X-com, is that the case? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell
User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine , just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page  because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page . I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Timetable
Hi Grunt. I have a question about the WMC RfA. I noticed half of the RfA's under "voting" were started later than the WMC one, and I was wondering on what kind of timetable that RfA would move into voting. It's still a daily problem to deal with all the aggressive reverts that endorse particular POVs, and I've been waiting for some sort of arbitration action to resolve this matter. So I'd appreciate if you could give some sort of estimate of when it would move into voting. Thanks. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 17:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your tip about being able to use double-quotes in article names! I decided to put this to use for Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar", Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther", and Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger". :) - Brian Kendig 23:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-ban of Rex071404 has been imposed
Notice from Rex on 04.15.05: In regards to Arb Case #3, last night, I took the time to read the associated project page, talk page, evidence page and proposed decisions page. Additionally, I also went back and read carefully the originally ArbCom ruling which is now being cited as in violation. In reading these, I concede that I have transgressed by reverting several articles over the last few weeks. Rather than make excuses or argue my viewpoint, I am content to accept the complaint as valid that several of my recent edits do count as reverts and as such, should have waited until several more weeks had past, so as not to transgress the 6 month "no reverts" issue. That said, I am pretty sure that other than these reverts, I had reasonably well complied with the prior ArbCom ruling. Even so, the Arbcom and community is deserving of better respect than I have shown by my failure to mind that previous ArbCom ruling carefully. For this reason, I am hereby imposing a sanction on myself. Effective at the completion of this edit, (and it's posting on Grunt's 🇪🇺 talk page), I am "banning" myself from any edits for 6 months, until October 15th, 2005. During this time, I will neither log-in nor edit from by Rex071404 account, nor will I edit anonymously from any IP only activity. This is a complete and total ban. This being the case, should anyone wish to contact me, I will be unable to reply except by email. To do that, you can log-in and email me. My email address which is on file is accurate. Thank you. Regards,

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 16:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Grunt, I do not believe this block is justified. Merely stating that one will spend some time away from Wikipedia is not sufficient cause for blocking someone. Has he committed any other blockable transgressions? Or has he asked to be blocked? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Rex071404
Did User:Rex071404 commit a blockable offense or did you just block him because he said he wouldn't be editing? -Frazzydee|&#9997; 17:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked Rex because I there seems to be no indication that they've commited a blockable offense- neither in your blocking summary or in your post to the noticeboard. The blocking policy states that: "self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited." I think that this applies to syops blocking other users to enforce a departure also.  But even if not, the policy says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support." Blocking to enforce Rex's departure is neither sanctioned in the policy, nor does it have widespread community support.  If you have any objections, feel free to post them at the noticeboard or on my talk page. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll wait for the arbcom case to file through. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:33, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Good Job!
I have to thank you for doing quite a nice job fixing vandalism in the Benedict XVI article, most of the time the only trace I could ever find of vandalism was seeing the history, rather then in the article itself. Good job! --Rangeley

192.139.27.18
I've noticed that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of instances of vandalism by anonymous users at 192.139.27.18. I was going to suggest some sort of long-term ban on the user, even though it was a common IP of Calgary schools, until I noticed that this is the same IP as the one you sometimes use. Has there been a previous discussion of the anonymous users' edits? What would you suggest? --BaronLarf 16:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rex arbitration
I don't understand the basis for your "Decided" edit to Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3, embodying the six-month ban as the only remedy. There was a clear majority of votes for the one-year ban as well. Most of the arbitrators supported both remedies. Three arbitrators who supported both (mav, Fred Bauder, and the Epopt) expressly stated their preference for the one-year ban. Only two arbitrators (you and Sannse) preferred a six-month ban. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the one-year ban, adopted by a vote of five in favor and one opposed, should be in effect. JamesMLane 23:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The official sanction of Rex's ban recieved more simple support votes than any of the other proposals; as such it is the remedy which has been implemented based on past arbcom proceedings. I've already cleared this with the other arbitrators. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:00, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)


 * If you've discussed it with the committee, I'll take it as set for this instance. For the future, though, I think this is a bad voting procedure.  Someone taking the viewpoint of mav-Fred-Epopt, that six months is good but a year is better, is put in a difficult position, in which voting for the second-best remedy might undermine the chance of getting the best, yet voting against the second-best remedy might undermine the chance of getting anything at all.


 * Things would be more complicated if there were multiple remedies that weren't subsets of each other (e.g., some voters favor a fine but with imprisonment as a second choice, while others rank those remedies the other way). Here, though, it's easy enough to deal with.  There were more votes in favor of a six-month ban than against.  There were more votes in favor of a one-year ban than against.  Absent any additional information, both should be deemed adopted, and of course they run concurrently.  (No one favored an 18-month ban.)  An exception could be made for instances in which some voters stated a preference for one remedy over another.  If three members said that six months was better than a year, and only two preferred a year, then the ban should be for only six months, even if a one-year ban had more supporters than opponents.


 * I hope the Committee improves its procedures in time for Rex071404 4, which I predict will begin in early November 2005. JamesMLane 01:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR & BaronLarf arbitration
Please let me know if there is something more or less that I should add in my response; I'm trying to answer a nebulous charge of "harassment" without any one specific incident shown to me to respond to. I've compiled an admittedly lengthy page at User:BaronLarf/Arbitration with SummerFR to try to show that I have nothing to hide and have indeed communicated with SummerFR until she told me "Leave me alone" and removed messages that I left for her.

This is my first involvement in arbitration, so let me know if there's anything I can do to help the process along. How long does this usually last? Thanks much. --BaronLarf 17:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, well, it lasts until either we reject the case (which seems likely) or until we accept the case and reach a decision - the latter of which can take quite some time. Right now, the best thing for you to do is wait and see if this case will be accepted or not. If it is, then you can worry about providing more specfic evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:31, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Arbitration page moves
I moved the two cases so there would be consistency in grammar (one had the period in "vs." and the other did not). Using "and" is better because the Arbitration Committee considers the actions of all people involved in a case. I really see no problem with the moves - the redirect is automatically created, and I fixed the links at Template:ArbComOpenTasks. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 18:35, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't even aware of the existence of Template:ArbComCases. Thanks for showing me it; I'll keep it in mind --Neutralitytalk 18:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:Grunt/Trash
The listing of your trash template on the page Category:Candidates for speedy deletion may lead to it being deleted. You might want to keep a backup copy without the link somewhere else just in case. --Henrygb 23:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Account Deletion
I have an account that I no longer want, User:Henry Williams. I would like to transfer the old edits to the new account, which I'm currently using. I understand that this is impossible at the moment because of a lack of developers, but would I be able to delete the user page for Henry Williams, and all associated pages, such as the talk page, and so you have any idea when the service will be back. Thanks, -WóCoill 10:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong vs Netoholic RfArb
Netoholic is listed as an involved party at Requests for arbitration. You are noticed as Netoholic's mentor.

Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. &mdash; Xiong&#29066; talk* 01:57, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Netoholic's page move from Transclusion costs and benefits back to User talk:Xiong/TC
Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented, it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. Blank Verse  &empty; 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic/Mentoring
Please add this page to your Watch list, and feel free to bring any relevant discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


 * And check the history, as he reverts anything critical of his actions. - Omegatron 01:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks by JonGwynne
User:JonGwynne is engaged in a series of personal attacks against me and other users. He is on Personal attack parole as a remedy in the Arbcom case against him. See this section from Talk:Kyoto Protocol Also see the history of that talk  beginning on 23:00 2 May 2005 through current. You may find this quote of his Because of local politics and a handful of biased administrators, I am not allowed to revert Global warming-related articles more than once. from this edit interesting. I can provide other edit summaries and talk comments from other pages if needed. Thank you. -Vsmith 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We the Arbitrators do not enforce our own decisions; take it up on the administrator's noticeboard for enforcement actions, please. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:05, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks Vsmith 01:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A note: VSmith's description of my comments is factually inaccurate.  What he describes as "personal attacks" are merely my pointing out his violation of wikipedia policy in the hope that he will curb his incivility.  I have repeatedly advid him that that pointing out where another users actions violate wikipedia policy is not a personal attack but he seems unwilling or unable to accept this view and insists on referring to these reminders as "personal attacks" as well as repeatedly censoring my identification of his violations on the relevant discussion board.  --JonGwynne 05:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not make this decision; if you have a case to make present it as a counterpoint to Vsmith's accusations on the noticeboard. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:46, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

User:Netoholic
Netoholic, who is currently under your mentorship, is currently engaging in repeated revert wars with several different users in Avoid using meta-templates. He is repeatedly moving the notice further down the page, despite the consensus of other editors that this notice belongs prominently at the top. None of these alterations were discussed on the Talk page. Netoholic is also altering User:Xiong's user page, which I see as a clear attempt to re-energize the long-standing war between these two users. In both cases, Netoholic has used multiple reverts. He has also removed all comments other than those from his mentors from User:Netoholic/Mentoring and stated that he has withdrawn the invitation for everyone except he and his mentors to edit it. I do not feel that any of this behavior is at all conducive to harmonious editing, nor do I believe that this is Netoholic's intent at this point. Firebug 01:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What e-mail?
What e-mail? Everyking 02:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not at liberty to discuss the contents of e-mail sent on the mailing list without express permission of those who post it to the list; I will however say that the e-mail in question did not originate with you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:14, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * But if I didn't write the e-mail, how can it convict me of bad faith? Everyking 18:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about you assuming bad faith. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:04, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Arbitration case against LevelCheck
Hi, regarding the arbcom case against LevelCheck: recently, he's returned to editing after a 9-day hiatus, and immediately commenced disrupting again (see List of people who have used the word "Islamofascism"). In light of this, I hope the arbcom will take a look at my request for a temporary injunction. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration rationale
Don't turn this into another unilateral revert war, please. There are people monitoring your actions on IRC and they are not impressed with what they are seeing. It's clear that you're being opposed in adding this tag; as I've stated previously revert warring is not the approach to take when you are being opposed if you do not want to start conflicts. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I'm out there doing some much need maintenance, and this page was reverted. I am the one that made first contact with the other party, and explained why the historical tag was appropriate.  If James F. wants to live out his ArbCom glory days, that's one thing, but he should be up front about it.  The page only saw activity in Feb 2004, is incomplete, and out-of-date.  If {(historical}} doesn't fit, I dunno what does. -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I'm just making sure that people aren't going to get worked up about this for little apparent reason. Revert warring on your part would do little to help your (already ruined) reputation in the eyes of the community, so I want to make sure it is not going to happen. I am certain that there are other people in the community that share this view; go out there and get them to back up your position by drawing community attention to the page if you really think this needs to be done.  Better yet, get them to help you with your maintenance work, too. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:41, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I agree, there is little reason for James F. to have reverted me without first asking my rationale. This tag is fine on the page, and appropriate, until someone want's to update this.  In fact, the tag and the category only aid people in finding such pages.  Frankly, the page isn't worth all this, and it's not worth anyone's time.  It's ArbCom-cruft. -- Netoholic @ 21:46, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I respect your belief in this, but there are clearly others that disagree with you in this respect. I aim to prevent needless effort being wasted over what (I view) is a trivial matter. If I were you, I would let this slide for a couple of days; in the meantime put a note up on RfC to the effect that there is some disagreement as to whether or not the page should be classified as historical. With luck, that will get enough people to throw their voices in to get a clearer idea of what the consensus is. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:53, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the history now. You added the historical tag.  James reverted it with a short explanation in the edit summary.  At this point, if you disagreed with his reversion, you should have brought it up on either the article talk page or his talk page.
 * This should be thought of as a general rule; the sort of cooperative/consensus-respecting attitude we want of you all the time. - Omegatron 21:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, Omegatron, thanks for your help.
 * * 20:12 - I tag it
 * * 20:44 - Jdforrester reverts
 * * 20:59 - I post on User talk:Jdforrester about this.
 * * 21:02 - James replies on his page.
 * * 21:06 - I reply (modified at 21:09)
 * * 21:08 I revert for the one and only time today
 * Seems as though I did it right by your book, and most everyone elses. I made first contact, I kept him informed, I wasn't a dick.  He did the opposite.  I should get a fucken gold star for following all the rules in this. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * Oh. That's better than I accused you of.  You proved me wrong: [[Image:Hero_of_the_Soviet_Union_medal.png|30px|fucken gold star]]
 * You still reverted it without consensus, though.
 * (Check those links. I tried to fix one but the history for this page is out of order?  I'm really confused by that.) - Omegatron 22:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're going to criticise Neto's actions, please do so elsewhere. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:40, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * I won't; it's alright. I only saw this because your talk is on my watchlist. - Omegatron 00:16, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

>unindent< Putting this on RFC is more trouble than it's worth. Geez, talking like this is more trouble. It's a page of no consequence, and I doubt it ever was, considering it's only been edited for two weeks 15 months ago by two people, had no Talk page before today, and is minimally linked. I'll give some time for someone to take a stab at it, since I think everyone sees my point that it's out-of-date... if that doesn't happen, I'll try and add the tag again. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
 * If it's a page of no consequence, why worry about it as much as you seem to be? Maybe it would be best to just go concentrate on something else unlikely to draw the ire of others, and if people seem to get upset at what you're doing - even if it seems unimportant - just drop the matter. And there must be something that some people view as consequential about this page, or they wouldn't be reverting you.
 * I'm not criticising your actions - in fact, they seem to be completely unobjectionable - and just am stepping in here to make sure something does not go wrong. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment, diff , please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him.Tkorrovi 12:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's continued template revert warring
Please read and consider the concerns that I have posted on User talk:Netoholic/Mentoring. I have concerns about Netoholic's actions during this mentoring period. In particular, he has continued the bad behavior described in Findings of Fact #5 and #7 - attempting to push Avoid using meta-templates as policy despite the lack of community consensus for this. He has repeatedly engaged in revert warring on approximately a dozen templates, continually reverting them to his preferred version (without meta-templates). During the time that he has engaged in this revert warring, he has been reverted by at least four users (myself, Itai, KingofallPaperboys, and Suslovian). In contrast, no other user has reverted to his preferred version, indicating that community consensus on these pages is that the meta-templates should stay. I hereby request that Netoholic be prohibited from engaging in any meta-template related reverts for the duration of his mentorship. This narrow limitation is the only effective way to prevent his bad behavior in this area. Firebug 09:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking for help on a major wiki project
Hey :) I was wondering if you'd be interesting in helping out with www.Knowmore.org, a corporation search wiki we're trying to get off the ground. We could DEFINATELY use some people that know how to make a wiki community great & the site is almost a blank slate at this point.  It's been heavily customized and is designed to help responsible consumers enter any product or company name and immediatly find information about that co. (the main focus of the wiki is corporate & political information in a much more specialized way then wikipedia currently offers) Let me know if you're interested!  aim: knowmoreorg or bernard@knowmore.org

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Background on User:Jguk RfA
I am not involved in the current RfA against Jguk relative to the BCE/CE vs. BC/AD usage issue. I have not modified any pages in regard to that issue, nor expressed any opinion on best usage. However, I have had some experience with Jguk that is likely to be illustrative.

Jguk was the most active participant in the recent "style wars"&mdash;i.e. the issue of whether styles ("His Holiness", "Her Majesty", etc) should be used in biographical articles, particularly prefixed to the initial mention. Jguk vociferously advocated their use (but only among his favored European Christian figures); modified many pages to match his desired usage; unilaterally changed the MoS to declare his usage correct; continually reverts pages to match his usage; and acted as a general obstructionist to the conduct of a survey around the issue. Moreover, Jguk has tried to "game" WP in several ways to act vindictively against people who disagree with him on this issue (a spurious VfD on an article about me; spurious RfC's against myself and User:Whig for advocating a different MoS policy).

Continuing on the same line, I have also noticed that Jguk has a tendency of inserting commonwealth spellings into articles, even to the point of revert wars around the issue. I have seen a number of cases where he has made edits that consist of nothing other than a spelling change or two from USA to UK spelling of a few words, in articles that otherwise use USA spellings. While the choice of spelling is pretty well trivial, I think Jguk's obsession around this characterizes his editing pattern. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:11, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

JonGwynne
(William M. Connolley 21:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)) Hello. You were the first arbitrator to sign up to the person-attacks parole for JG at Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Proposed decision. I've recently posted to the admin incidents re an attack by JG - one of several, he is pushing further at the boundaries. Sadly, this hasn't got a yeah or nay answer just comment, so I request you (who presumably knew what level of insult was required to trigger bans) to take a look.


 * (William M. Connolley 15:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)) Request renewed.

User 24.122.51.203
Hi grunt, i see you've had many conversations with this fellow before and told him he would be banned if he added any more commercial links, and he's added about a billion of them since then. He quickly added the link again to Omega point after i got rid of it. put him up at long term alerts and requested a long term ban, but figured i'd tell you since you so clearly warned him that he would be permanently banned if he ever did it again, and he's done it dozens and dozens of times since then. . . --Heah (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Internodeuser ArbCom
You note in my recent submission to the ArbCom that you require to see more evidence before you could make a decision on acceptance. I'm compiling evidence at User:Longhair/Internodeuser if this is of assistance to you. -- Longhair | Talk 14:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

vote tally
You forgot to change the vote tally in in the longhair/Internodeuser request.--Tnzkai 20:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

KaintheScion/ElKabong RFAr
I have left my comments in the KaintheScion/ElKabong RFAr. Please be advised that I have yet to be convinced that these two are actually sockpuppets. I also object to being named in this RFAr at all, as it is an obvious indication to me that the whole thing has been enacted in bad faith by editors pushing a political agenda. Enviroknot

WikiProject Theatre
Hi! This is a note to let you know that I have just established WikiProject Theatre. Please come and join us in building up Wiipedia’s articles relating to theatre! Ganymead 17:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi et al - admissibility of evidence
I note that you identify in your list of supposed personal insults by me of Tkorrovi that some of your references are not to what was said at the time, that of which Tkorrovi complains, but of some things I have said in discussing this case or in my evidence to the ArbCom. This is unfair for the reasons I discuss here. As one plank of my defence is that the things I said were true, I must be allowed to repeat them during the proceedings before the ArbCom. Practically all legal and quasi-legal bodies (in the free world) consider the evidence before it and submissions made to it to be privileged in that respect. All I am asking is that you find those of the original instances which are properly listed by Tkorrovi (see his list if you don't want to trawl thru all the Talk page archives). Paul Beardsell 21:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For illustration of this point, I repeat here my admonition of the ArbCom to look at what actually happened rather than Tkorrovi's often warped and sometimes dishonest take on matters. If you disagree with my admissibility point then I imagine you could identify the previous sentence as a "personal attack" on Tkorrovi and add it to the list. Paul Beardsell 21:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)