User talk:Mindspillage/2006archive1

This is an archive of my talk page from January 2006. Please add new messages to my current page.

Happy New Year
(Feliz Año Nuevo)



'''I wish you all the happiness in the world and remember, if an injustice is ever committed against you or one of your articles, I will always be by your side. Your friend Tony the Marine'''

Sock puppet problem
Hi there. I have my first sock puppet to report, and I'm stuck with what to do next after taging the user(s) and collecting evidence. They told me on the Help Desk to ask on WP:AN/I, but nobody responded. Then they told me to contact an ArbCom member. So now I contact you. , . --Dijxtra 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Saw you at the ArbCom members list, so I tought you can checkuser. Anyway, I sorted the thing out already. --Dijxtra 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clueless newbie seeks an explanation
Okay, I'm just a n00b, sort of (I've been registered here forever, but have only really gotten active in the last couple of months), and I come in search of knowledge.

To wit:

What's with the duck?

This is the second place I've seen it today. Is it an admin-only thing? Do I need to purchase my own duck or can I borrow somebody else's? Does it have to be in a pram? I mean, I'm even less likely to own a pram than a duck. What is the benefit of partaking in the duck experience? If I change my name to DuckInAPram, will I be considered cooler? It's all so confusing. --Aaron 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request / result of a personal threat
User:Bumpusmills1 is a new user whom I have worked with in an attempt to teach him Wikipedia guidelines, manners, and so on. To his credit he is trying to learn. Unfortunately, he was a bit abrasive at first and stirred up some vandals and such, especially anonymous editors User:68.45.146.191, User:199.216.98.66 and User:216.13.219.229 who placed User:Bumpusmills1's personal contact info on User:Bumpusmills1's user page and threatened him. (Examples of these threats are and, although there are more examples in the history.) It appears these anonymous users are sock puppets of one user. To cut to the chase, I was told to check with the people on the arbitration committee to see if one of you could do a checkuser on these ISPs and see if this is a Wikipedia editor making threats. Thanks for any help you can give.--Alabamaboy 23:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

St. Pete Times
I saw your article! I live in Florida, its great to see a Wikipedian so enthusiastic to the project, and a representative to the outside world. Keep up the great work.



Take care, ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know I'm late in congratulating you, but things take awhile, ya know. What a good article. Except, you only work up to two hours a day? And you only join 1,800 others (is that the actual number?)? "Are people who spend hours editing an encyclopedia for free a little, um, geeky?" I almost laughed out loud. And "Willie"? He obviously didn't do his research. :-) Thanks for promoting Wikipedia. You can pass this along to gmaxwell if you feel he warrants a little gratitude, too. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography
Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email
Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 18:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OTRS Help
I heard on the mailing list that there was some grunt work needed on the meta OTRS system. Is this still true, because I'd be glad to help out if I can. You know, the more musicabal members, the better, right? Cheers, Bratsche talk 15:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood & Huawei Probation Extension
Hey Spill, saw your motion to extend which I fully understand and agree with. However, I don't think that Schmucky should be left out per. --Wgfinley 23:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but if I could give my take. I have no special preference for Schmucky, and recommended the probation, but to be sure I looked at his contributions before responding on WP:AN and the evidence against him small. Whereas the other two seem to have made literally dozens of reverts in the last two weeks, Schmucky only has a handful. I think he has improved (or at least his activity is down :) and there's no sense in punishing him just for being Instantnood's counterpart if there's no edit warring (that's akin to punishing him for his POV). I'd leave it at these two for now. Dmcdevit·t 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:Ignore All Rules
Thanks for the kind words! Glad to see that people actually like to read my subpages :-). Nonetheless, I have looked at your record and several of your views and opinions at various Arbcom cases and RFC cases, and I think that your views on IAR is responsible . I think that there has been a bit too much ignoring of the rules lately, to the point where it has led to shouting and bitterness, and that is what inspired me to write that essay. By the way, good luck in the election, you are the one (and I think only) "incumbent" who I supported. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
 Francs2000's Bureaucratship 

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your user page
Of course, it just wouldn't be the same without this beautiful portrait, so you have to share this barnstar with Essjay. Have a nice day. --TantalumT e lluride 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
 * User arbcom nom

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Oldvfd
Template:Oldvfd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. —Phil | Talk 19:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the speedy assistance reverting the work of the User:Roger Dangerfield vandal. Best regards, Hall Monitor 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here, thank you. --Bookandcoffee 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks For Reverting Vandalism On My User Page
Thanks for reverting Roger Dangerfield's vandalism on my talk page. This is the first time that my user page has been vandalized, and I had not known what was going on. Once again, thanks for helping to revert my page back. I guess I should be honored since user page vandalism seems to me to be an initiation of sorts. ;) Thanks, mate. Boneheadmx 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And thanks also for reverting same on mine. Regards -- Ian &equiv; talk 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another one here. Would have quite confused me to find that note without explanation ;) Cyberevil 01:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Major and minor
From the talk page of Major and minor:

== Final paragraph - sadder ==

''Any comments on the mystery of minor key music tapping into sadness, grief, bitterness? Is it so, and why so? I'm not looking for a Sunday supplement "brain doctor" explanation.--shtove 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)''

'':There's definitely no scientific basis for it; it's all culturally conditioned -- in former eras the modes were given different interpretations. It can be fun to read ancient Greeks' analyses of why certain modes were happy, sad, or caused youth to misbehave (I seem to remember the Lydian mode was particularly wicked in this regard). Anyway, it's just because composers have been using minor mode for sad songs so we have learned to make the association. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)''

''::Thanks for that. There's an article on Lydian mode, but no mention of the misbehaviour of wicked yoofs. The Chinese musicology article describes a different type of scale, and how a switch equivalent to major to minor is made - I wonder does the "culturally conditioned" theory apply to traditional Chinese music too? Is there an article that explains all this, just the way I want, now, immediately? Or any suggestions for a heading to consult in Britannica?--shtove 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)''

'':::WP's music articles are pretty weak. Doctine of affections would be a good example to look up in the New Grove.&mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)''

New Grove's Doctrine of Affections is mind bending: can you help? According to my Barbarian beliefs, each Puritan deserves to spank and be spanked. Yours Rushpecfkly, shtove 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong number?
Hey, I think this was meant for you: FreplySpang (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Greg
Kat, this is honestly out of order. It was Greg who was rude, as he pretty much always is, and it's not fair to defend him and not make clear to people that he's your significant other. I feel Greg is a problem user and that you have a serious conflict of interest. It's clearly inappropriate for a member of the arbcom to be defending a user who's running around pretending to be an admin in order to intimidate people. When it reaches the point of you trying to solicit apologies on his behalf, it has gone too far. I'd like to discuss it with you further, and I've e-mailed you about that, so let me know if you're willing, please. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding here, because I don't want people to see only one side of this. I think you are mischaracterizing the situation, and that your statement does not accurately represent either my position or his. I'll respond more thoroughly to your email. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome
I'm trying. And I won't stop until I get everyone under a big tree, having a picnic. I'll bring the punch :).--Sean|Bla ck 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

St. Pete/Tampa Meetup
Hello Kat, it was great meeting and talking with you at the meetup. Have a safe trip back home! Laura Pinto 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom for Dummies
I've just created User:Snowspinner/Arbcom, which is a first draft of basic advice that people who are taking a case to the arbcom should have before trying to write an evidence page. It's geared towards the practical rather than the idealistic, but I wanted comments on it before I do... I don't know, actually, what I'll do with it. Phil Sandifer 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're back!
Hello there Kat: I do hope you had an enjoyable trip to St. Pete, and to welcome you back to the Wikipedia paramilitary; I am sure an array of delightful cases awaits you. I enclose suitable armaments to permit you to carry our your Wikipedia firing squad duties adequately. :) Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from me, too. ;) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Before anyone gets upset, I'd like to assert that despite any labelling to the contrary, the ammo boxes in the foreground are filled with tranquilizer darts only. *wink* TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Xed arbitration case
Hi Kat. It doesn't feel very good to oppose your arbcom nomination, especially not since I basically trust your judgment and know that you are a responsible admin, but your decisions and responses in the Xed case really made me question your passion to get it right, as I noted with my vote.

Now, considering the newest 'revelations' from Fred Bauder over at /Proposed decision, and considering the fact that some others have also raised some questions, I am specifically interested in your take on the background of the case; and of course I would also appreciate it of you tried to adress (some of) the various unanswered questions. Although Fred is by far the most responsive arbitrator in this case, he is quite good at saying very little actually. I would appreciate to hear your thoughts. I will ask some other arbitrators to weigh in as well. Thanks, &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, just now I came across your more extensive response here (missed it because I'm on a wikibreak officially). In the light of what Fred said recently about the mailing list and IRC discussions, I think it's possible that it wasn't to Snowspinner's thoughts that unduly weight was given. The problem, then, becomes the issue raised by Derex: why is the one year ban not supported by the FoFs? And how come four of the six arbitrators (excluding you) support it without responding to questions raised about it? There is something fishy about Fred's recent comments here,, and I think that input from more arbitrators could clear up things. Thanks, &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And to respond to your more extended explanation at the Workshop page: Yes, Xed was on a personal attack parole. That parole has been enforced only three times according to the block log. This did work out quite well sometimes, in that Xed, rather than diving into hot debates, focused more on contributing content after such blocks. It went wrong (as had happened before) when he started editing AIC-related articles, where he edit warred with Jajyg and Viriditas. The rest we know from the arbitration case; most evidence provided by Snowspinner is related to this. As several people have noted, there is no way in which Xed's misbehaviour would warrant a one year ban. It is not clear to me at all why a civility parole would not work; certainly no-one has convincingly argued this to be the case. &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo mark's comments. And also to point out that you stated "I think this is perhaps a bit long".  Since Neutrality has now changed his vote to oppose, your vote is now the swing vote on the one-year ban.  If you really do think the proposed ban is excessive, I'd ask you to reconsider your vote, as it is now the swing vote.
 * I'll note for the record that I often think that arbcom is too lenient with editors who contribute little except quarrels. One reason I take an interest here is that it looks to me like Xed has contributed substance (though my one editing interaction with him was actually a disagreement).  And since the problem here appears to be style, not substance, I wonder if this is really the best solution for Wikipedia.  I'm impressed that Xed started the systemic bias project, and think perhaps a little more forgiveness for ill manners ought to be granted for people who really affect the overall content of Wikipedia.  Meek people seldom change the world, but I do suspect Xed has now learned that there will be no tolerance for further incivility.  At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look in light of your previous comments next to your vote. Derex 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kat. I have read between the lines a fair bit on this one, and it seems likely there is more than meets the eye.  That's some of my problem with this, there ought to be some transparency to an arbcom decision.  If for some reason that can't be done, Jimbo should just make the call himself in private.  Anyway, I really appreciate you having a look, and I will respect as fair whatever final decision you make. Derex 22:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Have replied on my talk. I share Derex' worry over the 'correspondence behind the scenes'-thing, but all the same I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments. &mdash; mark &#9998; 10:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mindspillage. I'm going to offer my two cents out of the blue as someone who has interacted with Xed and watched the tail end of the most recent ArbCom hearing. One of the first edits on my talk page as a newbie was an encouraging comment from Xed on some articles I had started.  We later talked over how to split Congo Civil War into First Congo War and Second Congo War on what is now Talk:Second Congo War.  He made a terrific start to Congo Crisis, while I fiddled around with formatting, before he got sucked into the first ArbCom case and the article remains half-finished.  I was the first person to welcome him back after his ban ended, though saw little of him except at Talk:First Congo War over some challenges to content, and when he invited me to review Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  He also left a friendly note at Talk:Yoweri Museveni after it became an FA.  Nobody who has had social interaction with Xed would argue that he doesn't have a short fuse and can't be just a pain to collaborate with, and he did once pull me into a full scale battle he was holding with an anon mob over the article FilePile.  However, there are absurdly few regular editors working in African topics and, despite some ignorant statements made about his lack of contributions, his absence makes itself felt in the content of the wiki.  You and the other arbitrators obviously have to weigh all the other stuff that doesn't show up in my regular article hunting grounds, but it seemed appropriate to offer a counter view from someone who wishes Xed would stop messing around with the ArbCom and come back to writing great articles that almost nobody else on the wiki is interested in starting. - BanyanTree 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Childe Rowland
Hi Kat. Thanks for tidying that up. I have taken the opportunity to illustrate the article and remove the duplicated explanation of "childe". &mdash;Theo (Talk) 11:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion
Hey, Mindspillage. You may or may not remember me — we conversed back in November about some problems we were having with a user at the Doctor Who WikiProject. We've got another small matter, which isn't nearly as contentious as that was, but if you've got the time I'd like it if you could take a look at it. It's about the name of the page for the very first Doctor Who story. The facts are these: in the early days of Doctor Who, each story was a multi-episode serial, but the overall names of the serials weren't widely publicized. (See 100,000 BC (Doctor Who) and Doctor Who story title controversy for more information than you probably need on the subject.) At the time this serial was produced, the name used by the production team was "100,000 BC", but this wasn't widely known for decades. A novelization, VHS and (next week) DVD have all been released using the name "An Unearthly Child", which was the name of the first episode (as opposed to the full 4-episode serial). In short, "An Unearthly Child" is more widely used but "100,000 BC" is more accurate.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of insignificant matter that fans love to argue over. We were beginning to work towards a consensus here when someone unfamiliar with the "voting is evil" concept put it up at WP:RM. The resulting discussion and voting was either just at the 60% threshold or a bit past it, depending on how you count the views of some folks who joined the discussion but didn't vote (on the principle that voting is evil). Nightstallion closed the vote saying, "Not moved, vote is evil, evidence is inconclusive." Although I don't necessarily disagree with either of his reasons, I think that the discussion was heading towards a consensus to move the page to the more common (albeit less accurate) name, per Naming conventions (common names). Nightstallion said he wouldn't mind another admin looking at the vote/situation, so I'm asking you. Could you take a look at the discussion on the project and article talk pages, and chime in with an outside view? I think it would be helpful. If you don't have time I could ask another admin, or maybe even do an RfC, but I do feel we're just on the verge of a consensus and might get there with some sensible guidance, while further bureaucratic processes might make people ossify into their positions further.

I've been way too verbose here, so please forgive that as well. It's like Mark Twain said, "I am sorry this letter is so long, only I have not had time to make it shorter." Thanks for yours. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the above logghorea: I'm not asking for any formal process, just a quick once-over to see if you agree with Nightstallion's closing of the move request. If you don't have time, I completely understand — just let me know.  Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look at the issue, and for your thoughtful response. We will, as you say, keep talking.  I'm optimistic that a consensus can be reached, despite the ossification of some parties' positions (aided by the vote).  Again, thanks for your time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord
RE: request for arbitration

Hi. Concerning the arbitration regarding Erik Beckjord, is there a place that someone outside can say something on his behalf? He has mental health problems, but is not malicious at heart. I think it should be noted that his intentions are well, he just is not mentally able to edit without help. I think this should be considered, as he is not just some troll here to cause trouble. --DanielCD 02:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Kat and DanielCD
Re the bad boy you are discussing, he has an outside email address listed, and he tells me he thinks Kat is amusing and intelligent, and he likes Daniel if even if Daniel insults him.

He sends you both, Mindspillage and DanielCD the following:

(Re Beckjord,etc)

I've contacted him outside Wikipedia and he is of the opinion that this entire arbitration procedure is a huge farce and he really doesn't care what the committee does one way or the other. When people like Android79 are given any credeence whatever, the entire procedure loses all validity.

He does want to simply get some enlightened admin who is respected to make some simple and basic edits to the Bigfoot article, since it is not what he *says* that is judged, but it is the name he carries that is judged and instant reverts follow with no consideration of the __content__ of the edits he tried to make. However, an admin who has some philosophical background, such as DanielCD, might be able to insert a short paragraph in the Bigfoot article that can make a profound change in how READERS view this topic.

He says there is an old fashioned and almost comic book approach used in Wiki, which has been "Is there a Bigfoot or is it a hoax?" and this ignores the possibility that a new life-form may be involved, by excluding it from the basic question.

The better question for an ARTICLE should be:

On the question of alleged hairy humanoids, does the evidence show they are 1) a hoax or error;OR 2) a zoological species of possible primate; OR 3) a life form outside of zoology that has special abilities that enables it to escape capture?

In the light of research by advanced theoretical physicists such as Dr.Micho Kaku, (CCNY,CUNY)("Parallel Worlds") and Dr. Fred Allen Wolf ("Parallel Universes")as well as recent research evidence found by active researchers other than himself, this __restructuring__ of the basic article format question is justified.

Can an __enlightened__ and __intelligent__ ADMIN insert this change into the article?

Gerald Hawkin

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Globe
Nope, not yet! I'll let you know. :-) Antandrus (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on Cartesian materialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Not_a_content_dispute.2C_just_straightforward_bullying

This is not a content dispute, just straightforward bullying see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind#Final_mediator_recommendations_by_Nicholas_Turnbull

I would like to reinstate this request.

1. '''I have added all the content for this article. It cannot be a content dispute.'''

2. Alienus refuses to talk specifically about any point, including the new data that obviates his objections.

3. The mediation concluded that the dispute involved bullying.

4. The article is the victim of an evil troll who is simply teasing me.

Please do something. loxley 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck...
... with this. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Times that 300 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something?
Or someone, rather, assuming that J. Wales (the "one man" with the "one vote" in the sense of the cynical old joke) concurs with what seems to be almost everyone else on wikipedia that was paying any attention. Congratulations on the result, which I'm confident you'll prove is a sound judgement on the part of the community. Alai 07:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK
Do you know why this arbitration case is still in evidence rather than in voting? Alternatively, could the request for a preliminary injunction be considered? Robert McClenon 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations (or condolences?) on your re-election/re-appointment
Here's wishing you the best of luck and success in re-assuming your tasks in support of the encyclopedia, and to the benefit all of us. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (PS I'm a "prefer answers in the same place" sort, and will watch here but really, no reply is necessary...)
 * None necessary, but I'll thank you anyhow. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
My condolences Congratulations on your reelection to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on a huge victory.:)-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 03:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was an impressive showing! Glad you're continuing! -- M P er el ( talk 03:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup! Paul August &#9742; 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations from Heidi & Joe - a decidedly excellent selection! hydnjo talk 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How can you be an atheist and an agnostic at same time?
Atheist says there is no god.

Agnostic says we do not know one way or the other.

This is more intellectual.

-- Mr Agnostic.


 * Exactly: I don't think it's possible to know one way or the other, but I don't believe there is one. Strong agnosticism, weak atheism, if you want to get all technical about it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you consider yourself rather ignostic-atheist than agnostic-atheist? =] &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 07:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Recomendation
I am recomending that the subject User:Beckjord be placed in a Mentorship protocol. He has already requested assisstance before this matter came up. The mentors are not to be skeptical, yet follow Wikipedian protocol. I too have seen strange things myself, yet I don't let that influence me at all. The subject has to examine things as a doctor or a police officer would, so that he can follow Wikipedian protocol. My short time here will disqualify me from being a mentor myself. The mentors must be familiar with paranormal matters, yet follow Wikipedian protocol. Hope this helps. Martial Law 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

email from beckjord
He says he does not need mentorship,but simply wants an admin to clean up some of his edits,

AND NOW HE SEES ThaT SOME ARE DOING THIS,

but then Android79 and DreamGuy ruin it all by doing their stupid reverts that eliminate what the otehrs did in good will. Those idiots talk about removing fringe statements, when the fringe is the only thing with any evidence, and the mainstream people do not go out in the woods. You cannot be mainstream from your desk top.

New ideas in science usually come from fringe scientists.Then the mainstream scientists resist it.

DG and Android,

Those two, equal a Wiki  "Two Stooges".

Disgusted as well.

Tom Bennett

Wikipedia Signpost interview
Hello,. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.


 * 1) How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
 * 2) What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
 * 3) What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
 * 4) What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
 * 5) What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
 * 6) After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
 * 7) What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
 * 8) If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
 * 9) What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
 * 10) Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
 * 11) If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
 * 12) Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If some of the questions look familiar (I reused some from last time), feel free to skip them. Thanks!

RFAr
Just for the record, the question wasn't "can he be blocked if he's not being disruptive" because that's just commonsensical. The question was "can he be blocked if he is being disruptive", since several people have implied that he should not. Hence the confusion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)