User talk:Pavlov2009

Welcome
 * Please declare your existing account or else your proposals will be removed in 24 hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that Wikipedia guarantees my anonymity (I forget which policy). On the other hand, I am not aware of any policy under which my comments may be removed, just because I am using a new account. If you think that I am abusing my accounts, please feel free lodge a checkuser request.
 * Clearly I am not a new editor, though this is a new account. And I am sorry for being a little confrontation, but my experience is that people who criticize ScienceApologist get shat upon, and it seems that my hunch is going to be right. user:Martinphi has already been banned indefinitely, and earlier editors blocked. I think you should be looking at editors who are known to have abused sockpuppets, not editors who criticize them.
 * So with all due respect, which policy require me to declare my previous accounts? --Pavlov2009 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The historical principle that requires that accounts posting at RfAr must have an identifiable history. I have removed your proposals from the requests for arbitration. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Daniel has it right. Wizardman  04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIV is an official policy. Where is this alleged historic principle? --Pavlov2009 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo Daniel above, you've clearly edited under another account, so dropping someone at arbcom a private email to clarify you are not a person evading a ban would be much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still like to know where I can read about this historic principle. WP:PRIV and WP:AGF appears to be worth squat. --Pavlov2009 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the arbitration procedure (which exists at the sole discretion of ArbComm) isn't in conflict with privacy rules, nor with AGF. ArbComm has a natural interest to prevent excessive debate from new accounts. I have not looked at the proposals, but the claimed conflict doesn't exist. There is no requirement that you declare your earlier accounts. There is only an ArbComm procedure allowing clerks to remove edits from new accounts that don't declare. If you are a new account and want to make a comment in an ArbComm case, ask any editor with a history to carry the water for you. If that editor is willing to take responsibility for it, it can be done. In a way, it's like requiring a second to a motion.... There is no policy that gives newly registered editors the same rights as longer-term editors. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where can read up on either (1) the "historical principle that requires that accounts posting at RfAr must have an identifiable history", or (2) the "ArbComm procedure allowing clerks to remove edits from new accounts that don't declare"?
 * The object of ArbCom is primarily to check the evidence presented, and assess the facts. Who provides that evidence is irrelevant. I also have the right to protect my identity from the editor below, who feels the only response to the evidence, is to Wikilawyer the messenger. --Pavlov2009 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (4th nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You really do live up to the evidence presented in the current ArbCom. If they criticize you, you just Wikilawyer them.
 * I also see that you've accused iantresman of sockpuppetry before, (inconclusive), accused him of being user soupdragon with evidence that "firmly establishes" it, but which turned out to be false.
 * I also see from Feline1, that when you were found to have of abused sockpuppets yourself, it was iantresman you claimed was harrassing you. That was false too.
 * You were also found to have been uncivil toward iantresman, and failed to have extended good faith toward him.
 * iantresman's Web site also appears to have been trashed from from your home Internet connection,
 * You also told iantresman you were a professor. That was also false.
 * Your 3rd Sockpuppet nomination claims that iantresman is obsessed with you.Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (4th nomination) Looks like the other way around to me. --Pavlov2009 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.