User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 2

Welcome to Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia! I see you've made some edits already to the slavery article. Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some valuable resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

More on what I said at Help desk - you can sign your name in talk pages and voting by typing three tildes. Four tildes ( ~ ) signs your name and also displays the date which you signed your name. If you have any further questions, please see Wikipedia's help pages, add a question or comment to the village pump, or ask me on my User Talk page (click "talk" in my signature). If you're curious about this page, please see Talk_page. Thanks for signing up! -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, it's nice to see you created a user name. See you around. Howabout1 Talk to me! 01:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ground Rules
Any comments posted in this subsection will be deleted or moved.

Since Str1977 apologizes for filling up my space, I will state some ground rules. I would rather have disputants fill up my private space than clutter up article talk pages. No apology is required to using my space.

No apology is required from Str1977 or from J. Kenney. No apology is required from Famekeeper either. If he filibusters this page, I will archive it.

I will be glad to allow this exchange to continue, unless I conclude that anyone is embarrassing himself and that allowing him to be argued with would violate Formosa's rule. If I think that is happening, I will either create an archive page for the material that I think does the individual a disservice. Robert McClenon

Partial Answer to Questions
Famekeeper writes: "Your reference to Trent makes me fear you are another church stooge . How did you come into this- and why didn't you give a straight answer to my straight question about your history starting so soon before you jumped in as mediator-type."

I did not jump into the issue as a mediator-type. I responded to a Request for Comments and provided a third opinion. A mediator tries to stay neutral. I did not promise to stay neutral, only to respect POV and NPOV. I started out agreeing with Famekeeper more than with Str1977 about the substantive issue of Pope Pius XII's moral errors. I have now come to the conclusion the Str1977 and I agree on far more than we disagree about, including the need to be civil, and to avoid expressing points of view as proved fact.

As to my past history, I am hiding nothing. If you do not know who I am and what my history is, I see no need to help you further. Please explain why my past history is relevant to this discussion.

Famekeeper writes: "And McClenon, I'm telling you you will regret what you are doing which is to ignore the bad faith visible in the dispute , and  your aid to the deeply POV. I still haven't  got the  will to think Str you are  stupid- I can't in all honesty see that , though the english assistant  helps. Maybe you are married to a native speaker,  or maybe it is  the agency , the effect is the agency (May 4 th Pius XII folks..)"

Famekeeper has not explained why I will regret what I am doing. I have indeed assumed good faith both by Str1977 and by Famekeeper. When you say that I will regret what I am doing, please make it clear what you are warning me about. Are you warning me that someone will exact revenge (which would be a threat), or that I will somehow be ensnared in a conspiracy, or that I am placing my soul at risk in the next world? If it is the last, then I will trust to the mercy and justice of God. If there is a conspiracy, please identify it.

My marital status is of interest to me, but not to you. Nobody has helped me with the English language for many years. I have spoken it for 55 years and have written it at an adult level for 45 years. Do not ask who is ghost-writing for me. I do owe my skills with the English language to my parents, but whether you can call my mother a ghost is a theological question. Robert McClenon 02:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Another Request for a Summary
I have several times asked Famekeeper for a summary of the specific points about which he requests mediation or arbitration. I am still ready for a summary. I am waiting for a summary of two or three paragraphs. Exactly what are you saying is the issue about fact and POV?

Perhaps I did make a mistake in posting a page for a discussion of issues. However, if I did, then Famekeeper's pages, presented as POV, Pope's Hitler and Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy are far more biased.

I am not entirely clear what the complaints of blocking are.

Famekeeper wrote: "I ask you to stop and study or why should I bother with you except merely as an insulter.  Do it  yourself, or find yourself a mentor to guide you." Please clarify. If he is sincere in this claim that he is giving up on WP as a band of cyborgs, then I will not bother with him either. If you think that I need to be enlightened, then I suggest that Famekeeper either do the englightening, or find a mentor to advise me what he is trying to say. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Native Languages
Famekeeper made some remarks that were poorly stated about use of the English language. He appeared to be asking who was helping me read and write English. Maybe he was asking Str1977. That is not important. I can understand what Str1977 is writing. I cannot understand what Famekeeper is writing. I do not know whether Str1977 is a native speaker of English, or some other language. I have no issues with his use of this language. I do not know whether Famekeeper is a native speaker of English. He appears to be implying that he is, but he appears to have a language problem. If he does have a language problem, then he should stop embarrassing himself by posting long meaningless posts in what is supposed to be English. If he is a native speaker of English, then he should slow down and deal with his anger. Robert McClenon 02:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)==LVMI RfC== Robert - Greetings and thank you for your continued assistance in this RfC. I am writing in concern about your latest response on the Ludwig von Mises Institute RfC in which you asserted that I have "demanded that various editors recuse themselves from this commentary due to friendship with or agreement with other parties." You further characterized this as "unreasonable" and implied that I sought to exclude these participants from the RfC.

I believe that you have erroniously read my comments on the discussion page in which I drew attention to the issue of conflicts of interest. In no way was this comment intended to exclude participants from the RfC. Rather it was explicitly stated that I ONLY sought recusals of these editors in the event of mediation or arbitration on this dispute, where according to Wikipedia policy I am entitled to seek such recusals. Again this was not intended to apply to the current RfC and I apologize if you read it that way, however I do believe that I stated this clearly at the time, to wit:
 * "Given that a situation in which personal allegiances have exhibited themselves during the dispute resolution has emerged and given the possibility that this particular dispute may require future actions under the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, among them mediation and, if necessary, arbitration or some further intervention, I have become increasingly concerned that the result will be to prolong the dispute itself and inhibit the reaching of a solution that is agreeable to all sides."
 * "Should this indeed become the situation and should this dispute necessitate further procedures such as mediation and/or arbitration, I must request that any contributer with strong personal and/or political allegiances to either User:Willmcw, User:Cberlet or both recuse him or herself from any administrative, mediator, arbitrator, or other related third party role in subsequent steps of this dispute resolution"

Furthermore, I stated in this post that "participation of all editors is welcome on an RfC" indicating that this request for recusal was NOT intended to apply to the said persons' participation at the RfC. Given this, it appears that the position you attribute to me misrepresents my actual stated position on the subject. I do not believe you did so intentionally, and again I apologize if I was not clear enough, however I must also ask that you either retract or remove the said allegation against me as it is not representative of a position I took.

I also wish to thank you again for your help in this dispute resolution, and in light of recent events pertaining to the LVMI article, I am willing to withdraw the request for comment pending that the problematic conduct that necessitated it does not resume. Best regards, Rangerdude 06:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Robert : Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I received many votes from editors that I encounter frequently, which is re-assuring, but I am honoured that you and others that I don't know through Wikipedia saw fit to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 13:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fuelwagon
If you're looking for evidence, he first started doing it on September 16. Noting that SlimVirgin after reverts an insertion by another editor he shows up there for the very first time to revert her. On September 26 after SlimVirgin edits Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, FuelWagon show up there for the very first time, to revert her. He then goes to another item on SlimVirgin's most recent contribution list, Israel, and for the very first time starts editing there. Again, on September 30, he notes that SlimVirgin has edited Historical persecution by Jews, and shows up at there for the very first time and reverts her within minutes. He now claims he happens to have an interest in middle east politics, but this "interest" never actually manifested itself in any way before he decided to start following SlimVirgin around and reverting her. He also claims he is "widening his area of interests", but that "widening" appears to only extend to articles SlimVirgin edits. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit like, what was the word told to me... sour grapes. I criticized SlimVirgin's edit of the user Rfc instructions, citing the "words to avoid" policy about how to avoid "however". SlimVirgin and Jayjg tag teamed that page. SlimVirgin then deleted that piece of policy from the "words to avoid" page. I reverted it and put that page on my watchlist to keep her from deleting it again. So, while you can tell me about how SlimVirgin was on the "words to avoid" page first, I had CITED the page and used it to criticize her edit, AND THEN SHE DELETED THE ENTRY FROM THE PAGE. Your version is an interesting excercise in reporting only part of the story. A while later I see there's a revert war going on the "words to avoid" page about "conspiracy theory". I thought it should be added to the list given that it has connotations of "quacks in tinfoil hats", and is therefore not a neutral phrase. SlimVirgin and Jayjg both got involved in keeping it off the page (in case there's any doubt of Jayjg's loyalty here). This "conspiracy theory" dispute has been going on for a number of weeks now. SlimVirgin was quite vocal. I kept offering the "elders of zion" as a good example of how to report that some source said somehting was a "conspiracy theory" rather than to simply report it as fact. I then asked if anyone had a specific article that used "conspiracy theory" as fact. I asked the question a couple of times. no one ever answered. So I went poking around. The "Elders of Zion" article was about a jewish conspiracy to take over the world. And SlimVirgin mentioned in the "conspiracy theory" debate the claim that Isreal knew about the 9-11 attacks and warned Jews in the WTC building, so I went looking for articles about Isreal and Jews and 9-11 that used the phrase "conspiracy theory" as a factual label, rather than as the point of view of some source. As it happens, I have quite an interest in the politics of the middle east, anyway, so I figured it would be a two-for-one win. That's when I came across "Refusal to serve in the Isreali army" and "Historical persecution by Jews" articles. That's also when I learned that SlimVirgin and Jayjg are pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish POV warriors, and you both are hereby put on notice that any POV pushing in these types of topics are fair game. FuelWagon 04:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, while you're crying sour grapes over "stalking" ask SlimVirgin how she ended up on the Bensaccoutn RfC when she wasn't involved in teh article in question at all and the RfC had been around for a week without a single comment from her. She jumped on it only because she thought she could nail me for "another bad faith RfC" (her words). So, you can just get off your high and mighty and indignant horse. SlimVirgin has been harrassing me since I filed the user RfC against her a couple months ago. I haven't bothered arbcom about it, but if she wants to cry "stalking" against me, I'm going to have some diffs to provide about her. FuelWagon 04:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

my comment about autosign for wiki vandalism templates is there because an adnmin wont let me have it in the article or put it in the templates...  &#9786; A  d a m 1213  &#9786; | talk  16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message
Things like calling subjects of articles by their Christian names (or "Miss Carey", etc.), insisting on links to redirects such as Music Video Director (instead of Music-video director), capitalising all the words in headings, etc. OmegaWikipedia has more than once reverted legitimate page moves in line with naming conventions by cutting and pasting back to the incorrect article name. (WinnerMario, despite interventions from other editors as well as explanationd from me, continues to insist that songwriting is exempt from normal capitalisation rules.)  is in fact unconnected with the pop-music articles, but my corrections to the English at Battle of Vaslui so enraged him that he's been pursuing me around Wikipedia since (see my attempts to get help at W:AN/I). There are many others; if you need diffs, I can supply them (but I'm going to bed now). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comment to Mel
Robert, you keep inserting yourself into the FW issue with inaccurate observations, which serve only to stir things up. You said elsewhere that he had asked you (in your words) to butt out, and I'm sorry, but I'm now asking you to do the same, which could mean you're the only thing he and I actually agree on. Every single time you comment on it, you keep it going. Please let it go. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

no private email
Your disclaimer that email is not a private means of communication needs to be a little more prominent in my opinion and needs to be at the top of your user page and your talk page. Anyone who wanted a message posted publicly on your talk page would simply do it themselves. The only reason to use email would be for the expectation that it remain a private communication. This is the basic understanding of email. That you go against this understanding is your choice, but I think you need to be a little more clear up front with folks who might be sending you what they think is a private email. Also, your requirement that the person request mediation for the email to remain confidential is an interesting caveat, given that ANY email might be an attempt to resolve a dispute, whether mediation is requested or not. Anyway, how you treat email is up to you, but that you go against the standard expectations seems to warrant a more prominent disclaimer on any page that has an "email this user" link to your email. FuelWagon 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon RfC
Hi. I wanted to bring to your attention that an RfC has been posted concerning User:FuelWagon. Please add any comments you believe are appropriate. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Popmusic RfC
Can you explain what you just did there? It appears that you restored a vandalised version of the page. Why, pray tell? Guettarda 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry - I looked at the diffs, I didn't realise that someone had restored the version I had tried to clean up because the person had restored the comments in comments form and added comments into the middle of Freddy's text. It's a horrible mess, with comments inserted wily-nilly.  Guettarda 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

viewpoint of community
This is too long to post on teh RfC, and besides, if I post it there, I'm guessing a number of editors will simply pile on it and tell me I'm lying. Anyway, here's your answer.

"I do not fully understand FuelWagon's view of what an ideal electronic community would be. It appears to be a somewhat utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism."

True content, true editors, true friendships, in that order.

First, the content must be true and neutral and report accurate views of outside sources, not be a place for editors to delete a verbatim quote from a notable source because they don't like that viewpoint. The entire dispute around the Terrorism article was an edit war over inserting the following text:


 * Noam Chomsky, senior scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, says that "the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state." After President Bush declared a "War on Terrorism," Chomsky stated:


 * "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called “low–intensity warfare.” [...] If you read the definition of low–intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of “terrorism” in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they’re almost the same."

A large number of editors continued to revert or delete or otherwise attempt to coerce these couple of lines of text out of the article. In controversial subjects, wikipedia reports the different views, not just the most popular view. Obviously, Noam Chomsky has an unpopular view and whether it went in the Terrorism article became a popularity contest. This content was true, but a bunch of editors fought to keep it out. The same editors who RfC'ed Zaphram blaming him for all the prblems at the Terrorism article were the exact same editors who were fighting me on the above four lines of text. I reported that on the Zaphram RfC. For doing that, Carbonite RfC'ed me.

Second, editors need to be true about their actions. And that means if they break policy they admit it, if they abuse powers they admit it. I got blocked for NPA violations when none existed on my talk page. Yet, no one can admit that. SlimVirgin's edit contained massive factual and NPOV errors, and she refused to admit a single error.

You can argue whether Neuroscientist's post violated NPA or not. I don't think it did. I also think there needs to be a clear distinction between a "personal attack" and simply "taking something personally". If you take criticism of your behaviour as a personal attack, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. If you take criticism of your content as a personal attack, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. And if you can't admit that one of your edits contained a factual error, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. I say SlimVirgin takes criticism of her edits personally. Her opinion of RfC's being "horrendous" seems to follow the notion of taking criticism personally. But just because someone takes criticism personally doesn't mean the criticism is a personal attack.

Back to true editors, SlimVirgin tried to shaft me on the Bensaccount RfC. And no one can even comment on her behaviour there. She had just declared she coudl assume no good faith on my part, and later that day goes on a crusade to nail me for "another inappropriate RfC". She had no business involving herself with that RfC. If there was any procedural problems with the RfC (and there weren't), an uninvolved administrator should have handled it. But she refused to hand it off to anyone, she was looking for anything to nail me with. I find it laughable that I'm accused of making wikipedia a battleground when SlimVirgin turned the Bensaccount RfC into a Battleground against me six weeks ago. And NOT ONE person who supports this RfC can say a peep about it.

Truth is like NPOV policy. You can't just say part of the truth, like "FuelWagon violated NPA here" and just ignore "SlimVirgin took her battle with me into the Bensaccount RfC". And even if you want to say something like "Neuroscientist violated NPA with his critique", that doesn't mean avoid saying "his criticisms are correct, SlimVirgin's edit was rife with errors".

And I think it's sad that the idea of truth here gets turned into "blame". Blame assigns "fault". Truth is just giving an accurate representation of what happened. I violated NPA. I lost my cool. I was blocked. If you can't have truth without turning it into "blame", then there's no hope for wikipedia.

There seems to be a tendancy for "stonewalling" around here. Do something wrong. Someone calls you on it. deny it. misdirect attention away from you. Get your buddies to come in and help with the misdirection, have them attack your critics. Get a bunch of "revert buddies" who will back you up in articles. Close ranks around the person beign criticized. Do anything at all possible just to avoid saying something like "I was wrong". If this behaviour isn't discouraged, wikipedia is lost. And thus far, my experience of teh dispute resolution system isn't encouraging as to the fact that RfC's reward the "popular" editor, not necessarily the "honest" editor, or the fact that arbcom would avoid any specific findings of truth specifically because an editor has been around a long time.

Finally, if your content is true and if you are honest about your actions as an editor, then you've got the basis for a true friendship. I would consider GordonWatts a friend not because he doesn't make mistakes with content, but because when he does, he's been able to admit it. And we have diametrically opposed points of view about the Terri Schiavo case. David Bergan is another editor I'd consider a friend, and likewise, we have almost completely opposite points of view on Intelligent design. But he can be honest when he sees he's made a mistake or is wrong.

And I don't need to take their honesty and turn around and "blame" them for something. It just means I can trust them to be straight when they screw up, and I don't have to worry that they'll try to rewrite history on me a month after the fact, or that they'll come at me with a "combat negotiator" who makes all the motions to appear to be attempting to "resolve" something, but really wants to avoid admitting any mistakes. I don't have to worry that they'll suddenly shows up on an RfC they had no interest or involvement with and suddenly decide that I wasn't following procedure, but honest and for true this has nothing to do with any past grudges. Yeah, right.

I can't imagine "friendship" existing on anything other than truth. Without truth, all you get is liars who ally themselves with people telling the same lie: Cliques and revert-buddies and packs of editors who collude with each other at the expense of truth.

This is not about a "utopian sort of anarchy in which there are few friendships and much public criticism." This is about articles that are complete and true, editors that be straight about their actions, and honest friendships. FuelWagon 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

battlefield
Just wondering about something here:

I filed the Requests for comment/Bensaccount 22 August.

Every diff of evidence involved relates to teh Creation science article. SlimVirgin hadn't edited the article during that dispute.

Because I submitted evidence to arbcom the day before that was critical of SlimVirgin, she posted on my talk page that she is "all out of good faith". 03:26, 31 August 2005

SlimVirgin suddenly takes a keen interest in proving the Bensaccount RfC "This looks like another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by you" 22:47, 31 August 2005

She then proceeds to take her dispute of the Bensaccount RfC seriously enough to flood the talk pages with arguments. I tell her several times that given she had just announced she could assume no good faith of me that same day, that she should not be the admin to determine the validity of the RfC. If there were a problem with the RfC, another, uninvolved admin should have handled it. She refuses to hand it off to anyone and makes it her personal mission.

Now, while people keep pointing to the "Words to avoid" article and saying I "stalked" her, (despite how many times I keep showing that the timeline proves that she followed me there), don't you think that SlimVirgin was looking for something, anything, to discredit me because I submitted evidence to arbcom that was critical of her? I submit evidence to arbcom, the next day, SlimVirgin tells me she's all out of good faith because of my evidence, and then later that day suddenly sinks her teeth into an RfC that she had no involvement with for the weeks prior, no involvement with for the week the RfC had been around, and despite my repeated requests to hand it over to another admin, she refuses. Someone needs to explain to me how SlimVirgin's behaviour on the Bensaccount RfC doesn't qualify as her taking her personal grudge against me and using the Bensaccount RfC as a battlefield to prove what a bad editor I am. (forgot to sign again. posted 03:06, 24 October 2005 by FuelWagon)

Request for input
Hi Robert, long time no see! I'm trying my best to calm down a dispute between two users active on the Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses pages, but when I almost get them to stop reverting each other, they start again. I learnt from the Charles Taze Russell fracas to stay out of reverting and editing, but it doesn't make any difference.

If you have time, can you have a look at the pages and see if you can do anything, as I'd rather not do an RfC; it's really over a trivial matter. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

FK Research
Dear Robert, FK's gone a while and I don't miss him. You were involved with him and have wondered about his language. Well, I asked a friend of mine, who's into computers and stuff, about his IP and he said, that FK posted from Dublin, Ireland. He also thought that his language as well as his insistence on being a native speaker of English remings of Indians (meaning from the subcontinent) he was talking about. This is also confirmed by some sections from FK's talk page: [] [] []

I thought I might post this, in case you're interested. Str1977 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at this [] Str1977 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignore all rules
I read your comment on Tony’s RFC. I’m thinking of taking the reference to Five pillars, which claims this is on a par with NPOV, out of the &#123;{welcome}} template. What do you think? Susvolans ⇔ 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration
Thanks for your response, Rob. I appreciate the input and the insight. You're probably correct that the Arbitration people will do what's right. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for alerting me; I'd seen an early version, but there wasn't anywhere to endorse it then, and it slipped my mind. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that this has now been listed under User Conduct as well. I provided some user conduct evidence, but am concerned that the larger goal User:FuriousFreddy was trying to accomplish may get lost if the RfC becomes overly focused on any particular user.  Thoughts?  Jkelly 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

MoS?
Robert, you wrote in that RFC about MoS edits being ignored and reverted. What edits are you referring to? OmegaWikipedia 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

mediation failed
Well, Robert, I know you have quite a bit of faith in the dispute resolution process at wikipedia (a somewhat naive faith, in my opinion, but your results may vary). I have told you from the beginning that process ain't worth Jack if the people running the process are themselves part of the problem. And I know you've got an overwhelming amount of faith in the mediation process, so I thought I'd report to you that the Requests for mediation/Ed Poor and FuelWagon has failed. The mediator (Improv) has withdrawn due to a complete lack of participation from Ed Poor. 16 days ago, Improv emailed us (because Ed Poor wanted to do mediation by email) a number of questions to start mediation. I responded in full. Ed responded basically saying he "needed more time". 15 days later, no response from Ed, and Improv emails him a "prod", asking for his answers. no response. A day later, Improv withdraws from mediation because he only mediates one dispute at a time, and Ed has gone 2+ weeks without a response to mediation. Ed did, however, find the time to make about 650 edits to wikipedia in those two weeks. So, now what, Robert? The people who are part of the problem are also part of the dispute resolution process, and if they don't want to deal with something, they either get their mob friends to close ranks around them, or they simply don't respond at all. Anyway, your calls to use the dispute resolution process appear to be pointless. Arbcom ruled Ed did no wrong and "didn't have time" to deal with finding out what particular wrongs he may have done. A pardon. I asked the mediation chairman if they had any process for dealing with a mediator who failed to mediate. He asked me if I wanted to stamp Ed's forhead with something or fire him as mediator. I try mediation, and Ed simply doesn't show up. So, in the future, please spare me your talk about resolving things through channels. I've tried every step, and as long as the people causing the problems have friends who are running the process, then the process is a joke. And I think your efforts to change or rearrange the process are pointless as long as friends are allowed to pass judgement on friends and enemies are allowed to gang up on their enemies. You seem to think a jury system is overkill. Everything I've seen says its the only thing that will fix the problem. But by all means, focus on the process and ignore the problem and the problem users. All the best. FuelWagon 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

hard ban
I've got to work on my "anger" issues while you threaten me with a "hard ban" for my anger issues? I was in mediation attempting to resolve something with Ed Poor. You were the person who kept pushing me to try mediation. I kept telling you it woudl be a waste of time. So when I finally tried mediation to work out my disptue with Ed Poor, and when mediation failed to produce a single productive thing, I post to your talk page saying, basically, "see, I told you it wouldn't work". And now you go on about how you don't see there being anything to resolve in the first place, that I'm dwelling on the past, that I need to work on my anger? And if I don't satisfy your requirements, its time for a "hard ban". Should I jump for joy with that threat? I kept telling you that mediation wouldn't work. When I finally request mediation, you come back telling me I shouldn't have made the request? You were one of the people pushing me to request mediation in the first place. Use the process. Get it resolved. All that jazz. Now you come after me saying I didn't have anything to mediate, and that for requesting mediation I was "dwelling on past wrongs" and if I can't stop it, I should be banned??? Got to love how wikipedia works. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't. FuelWagon 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and one other thing, if I post something on your talk page, maybe you could reply on my talk page or on your talk page, rather than pasting it to the talk page of an RfC. I don't know, just a crazy idea. My mediation with Ed Poor had nothing to do with the RfC against me. I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by moving it to the RfC talk page, but from my point of view, it appears to be an interesting form of escalation, or of "snowballing" an unrelated dispute into an RfC. I find your policy that email is not private unless mediation is requested to be similarly an escalation of things, but whatever floats your boat. In any event, Ed's refusal to answer a mediator's questions for two weeks while finding the time for 650 edits to wikipedia doesn't, in my book anyway, have anything to do with the bogus RfC against me, unless its related by the fact that its another piece of the snowball. FuelWagon 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "but I do not criticize him for being tired of the whole thing." I grew tired of this the day I withdrew my certification of my RfC against SlimVirgin. Keep it factual? There has never been anything but facts in my comments, either on my RfC against SlimVirgin, my RfC against Bensaccount, my comments on the RfC agaisnt Zephram, and my response to SlimVirgin's punitive RfC against me. She is the one who needs a lesson in "facts". But I grow tired of trying to correct the lies of her accusations of stalking to the "words to avoid" article. No one cares. No one comments. No one looks at the simple dates and diffs I provide. And I grow tired of the stonewalling of the Bensaccount RfC, and her stalking me there, turning it into her personal battlefield against me, yet no one can comment on the sheer coincidence of dates and diffs around there. You were on that page at one point, Robert, yet not a comment from you about SlimVirgin's sudden interest in the RfC or her newly declared grudge against me. And I grow tired of the selective enforcements of rules, strict interpretations in one case, and loose interpretations in another, all dependent on who the accused is.


 * There is no cabal, Robert, not in the sense of a secretive cult of powerful people wearing robes, meeting in secret, and plotting the dominion of the world. There is simply a group of childish individuals who give personal loyalties more priority than truth for the direct personal benefit it returns them. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are pro-Israel and pro-Jewish editors. It is a win-win for them to work together, to be each others revert buddies. It has nothing to do with an all-powerful secret cabal, and everything to do with kids stranded on a deserted island. El_C was combative against me on my original RfC against SlimVirgin. But then I didn't hear boo from him until immediately after SlimVirgin threatened me with arbcom, at which point he takes a sudden and combative interest in my subdirectories that have already been proven to be within policy. Every editor but one who initially supported SlimVirgin's position on her RfC against me just happened to be teh exact same peopel who supported her when I RfC'ed her. I grow tired of the children and their conch shell.


 * A 5,000 word critique by an actual neuroscientist doesn't matter. What matters is that SlimVirgin has a team of signatory buddies and the dispute resolution system works based on votes, any votes, your friends, your buddies, that's all that matters, just the number of people you can get to sign. People who will sign whatever posistion of an RfC supports the members of the club. Isn't it hilarious that Jayjg would endorse Mel Etitis's position that he didn't think his reverts counted for 3RR because he was reverting edits that were violation of policy, and just three weeks later, Jayjg is reporting me for 3RR violation for the exact same thing he pardoned on Mel Etitis's RfC? No? Well, I grow tired of pointing out the biases and the kids and their conch shell. If you don't want to see them, then I can't make you look.


 * And no doubt, if you manage to withold any criticism of all the folks who RfC'ed me, I would not be surprised that they endorse your nomination for adminship. That's how the system works, you know. Carbonite didn't see a need for an RfC until I commented on his RfC against Zephram in a way that didn't go along with the crowd.


 * So, the scenario, Robert, is that an admin who on the same day she declared she was all out of good faith suddenly shows up on an RfC that had been around for a week with no comment from her, about a dispute on an article she had never edited. The same day, and she turns the RfC into a crusade about inappropriate RfC's, which eventually proved to be wrong. So, the question is, is that turning wikipedia into a battlefield? And the answer, interestingly enough, depending on how you word it, may affect whether or not a certain band of editors will eventually support your nomination for adminship. And you're a good editor, Robert, with a pretty neutral head on your shoulders, but unlike me, you've got some political savvy. You know when to hold them, and you know when to fold them. Me, someone tells me a lie, and I have to respond with the truth, no matter who it may be critical of. But wikipedia could use admins more like you, so I don't fault you for keeping mum. I criticized the Lord of the Flies gang on the Zephram RfC and look where that got me. I'm just tired of the whole thing anyway.


 * And in the end, me telling the truth won't change anything anyway. Because the truth doesn't matter on wikipedia. What matters is who has the biggest signatory team, the largest group of revert buddies and RfC patsies. What matters here is who holds the conch shell, and it certainly isn't me. And I just find the whole thing tiring. FuelWagon 05:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Concordat POV banner
Dear Robert, I flagged the Reichskonkordat article as POV after EffK's recent additions. I initially reverted them but he insisted on re-reverting, even after John Kenney concurred with me. After that I desisted for the moment from reverting again and flagged the article, as explained in the edit summary: "because of FK edits - off-topic, inaccurate, POV or incomprehensible". I elaborated a bit on that on the talk page, but it's hard to read. We both know why. Str1977 12:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Because of my wikibreak I didn't notice this until reading back on my talk page history. Anyway I wanted to thank you for attempting mediation between me and Xiong for the "ultimate battle between good and evil" earlier. Actually it's kind of a weird conversation as I read back on it. Thank you, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 15:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 and EffK at 16 Nov 2005
I hate to have to come and include you in extra work but I inform you that it appears from Str 1977  editing today that he has come to see as NPOV the  information so long at contention, and the manner and  balance of the presentation. He does not remove the gist of my assertive  edits from either Reichskonkordat or Centre Party Germany  and it seems that a mixture of  , howling  ban , then , politeness , then ,determined demand for proof of my error coupled with  his reading  some of  my external attempts at linkage  , may have brought this  political insanity to a conclusion. However to both of you I realise that my assertions are painful, and I do not plan on desisting  from the digging  for  episcopal source , to solve  another problem  (when did the church/Pacelli  policy end -if it did . I ask Str  to help with several remaining  German questions , but am hopeful that at last I may not be cast as the paranoid, schizophrenic ,slipshod filibustering  ,illiterate  conspiracy theorist  you yourself characterised me . Any chance of an apology ? Any chance of you changing your characterisations and adhering to  good faith in my editing, Monsieu ? I'd be most happy if it were the case . Of course , I may be wrong  and it is just that Str lost his spectacles today .... but I ask you to read the editing he made and upon which I base this  present position .  EffK 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Posted on the RfA as a caveat to FK's post:

At the moment let me just note Str1977 10:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or *that I have accepted the gist, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
 * that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
 * that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
 * that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.


 * I also found it strange that EffK decided on 16 November that he and Str1977 had resolved all of their agreements, when on 11 November he requested that Str1977 be banned from Wikipedia. EffK asks me to apologize for name-calling, which I am ready to do, but he offers no apology to me for four months of vile personal attacks (including telling me to wash my mouth out with soap, when I had been civil) on me and four months of baiting, and more than a year of uncivil behavior to Str1977.  Robert McClenon 12:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello - I was already aware of the arbitration request, and I support it, but I'm not sure what I can do at the moment to indicate said support. john k 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977(request for arbitration of, by Effk)
Dear Robert McClenon, various things draw me to this post here. First your request for an apology : I will apologise most fulsomely for all that you can demonstrate of my ill-action. I'll even say, give , you a general apology for everything, including this post.

I come to you because of your particular capacity as, perhaps, necessary wikicop. I should congratulate you on so taking this position, as noticer of disputes and referror of arbitration. I will apologise to you, when I know what I have done wrong, and apologize as one human in cyberspace to another , given that I also have utilised the same freedom to remind the world of your relations to me. However ,

I do not come here but to profit from your virtues, and so , ask you to kindly nominate my shadow  , Str19977  for the arbcom. I say, correcting myself this much , "as I have asked for tis since forever". Or in bureacrese remind you that I asked for this at least 6 months ago of you yourself, McC...

The User is notified, and has declined to forestall such a request, put to him most clearly on his userpage.

I do not request that you aplogise to me, I have personal experience of the degree to which your assiduity leads you, and will say no more than - that which you yourself posted , is recorded. We're probably human both of us, and although I object on taste to your qualification of humanity on your user page, we can choose to look for a brighter side now and not eliminate those who do show some useful characteristic from this cyberlife, perhaps even the apologists.

I do request you, as from the very start of your involvement, and , as I repeated over at the discussion page for the ArbCom , that you , aware of my request now for 6 months ,  should post my request for arbitration re User:Str1977.

I feel it is wrong that the user not be specified, nor that (he/she) should in any way feel diminuished by lack of centrality or the /our sharing thereof  on the Arb Com. I say he must be invited to the party / inquest.

You may, to facilitate in several ways , reduce the allegation towards being  exceedingly simple : that user Str1977 is as users Flamekeeper, Fiamekeeper, Corecticus , Famekeeper and now Effk , have charged : the user as characterised by his editorial actions is  a vatican  apologist/agent.

You may add that he is by no means alone, though the central and most apparent , and I require you to corrolate that this user has throughout his appearance on Wikipedia , sought to subvert the community on principle , by bad faith and denial of sources.

I require you to do this because I have confidence in your bureaucratic bite. If you should refuse, doubtless prinkingly , I shall find another such  capacitor. You could, perhaps, do me the grace to let me know. I shall await this response I ask of you, and thw which claim , in good faith , OK ? Of course, a reluctance will add to general human woepedia ( thats a suggestion of a term we need , hence brackets ). As you well know, neither I not the user Str1977 , are in any hurry. 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC) EffK 22:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what EffK is trying to say. If he wants the ArbCom to take action against Str1977 for being a Vatican agent, the way to do that is by posting such a request as a comment on the RfAr.  Robert McClenon 16:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked you to post a RFArb on Str's behaviour . You don't wish to do it, well you never did -though I have called for this for 9  months. Hardly the actions of a mediator, but then these always seemed rather feint . I continue to post diffs which will reveal  the history of this, with you included. I cannot thank you for your  action now, as it is purely antagonistic  , which is normal  . If I had signed your RfC in time , you'd still be up in the lights . I retain  my experience of you  , and hope to retrieve  that reference to your changing your username , as soon as I can make your user history work fully . I remind you that you were accused of acting as a bully , and  you were released upon a technicality . You seem not to have moderated that behaviour . I retained my proof of your cavalier  use of the truth  , and am pleased to call for your admonishment for  behaviour  at the Arbcom . If the case does not proceed , I shall consider another RfC for more  McC bullying behaviour . You are and were a false mediator in my request that the Wikipedia be freed from whitewash  . I shall not request anything else  by you , but may request anything  necessary against you . EffK 21:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason that I never posted an RfAr on Str1977's behavior is simple. I never saw any behavior that warranted an RfAr.  Famekeeper or EffK claimed that Str1977 was "blocking" him from posting allegations of Vatican collusion with Hitler, but I never saw any evidence of any censorship, but only of reverting of unsourced edits.  I tried to ask Famekeeper to summarize the points that were at issue, and the usual reply would be a long polemic that was not directly relevant.  He never did summarize any questions of fact, nor present any charges of improper editing.  On the other hand, I did post an RfC and then an RfAr about Famekeeper, because I did see and show substantial evidence of disruptive behavior, including the use of talk pages as a soapbox and personal attacks.  If EffK wishes to post an RfAr against Str1977, he can do that.  If he wishes to request that the ArbCom join Str1977 and me as parties to the case against him, he can request that.  Robert McClenon 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK reference
Dear Robert, you asked why I cannot address him directly. It is not that he has insulted me - he has done that many times and I can put up with that. But recently he has gone one step too far, dragging in my grandfather into his speculations  (scroll down to the paragraph, "I repeat to you that ..."), my initial  and my further reaction. I will not address him publicly (any "you" would be an oversight) until he apologizes for that. But you needn't do that as well. Either he listens to one voice or will not listen to any voice. He'll certainly will not listen to you, Robert, since he has vilified you even more than he has vilified me, and that with fewer reasons and at a shorter time. But thanks for your consideration, Str1977 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/EffK has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be place at Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workship. Fred Bauder 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Webcomics RfAr talk
Hi. Your comments here are a bit ambigious. If you think my action was inappropiate, please do say so. If not, could you clarify your statement, it currently reads (to me) as the classic, "Well, I'm not saying your dog is ugly, but I do notice you walk him backwards." brenneman (t) (c) 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rl
Wikipedia has had several crisis-es, as you call them. The RFA for Rl seems to indicate that a particular turning point had been reached at that point in time. Therefore I'm very curious as to what your reasoning was at that point in time. Kim Bruning 06:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Again?
Please stop mentioning my name in relation to FW. How many times do I have to ask? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I shouldn't be so sharp with you. It's just that the situation has been going on for five months and it's really getting to me. But I shouldn't take that out on you. I would be really grateful if you wouldn't mention it again. SlimVirgin (talk)  16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights
You may be interested in User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

EffK
I've looked (not in great detail, I will admit) at the arbitration materials, and it looks to me like your evidence is fairly comprehensive, or at least, so extensive as to not really require much further. EffK is such an obvious mess that I can't imagine that he won't get a serious reprimand, and the evidence you guys put up is pretty solid. So I'm not sure that doing anything further would be worthwhile. john k 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon post
If I start to revert on the Pius XII article, we need enough people present to back it up b/c I'll get kicked off after 3 rv's. Like the Bay of Pigs, I would need assurance of a few people behind me to ensure the article stays put in the October version. The removal of someone's hard work in the quote section is a disgrace and it should be reversed, but the effort must be coordinated. User:70.21.166.96 22:47, 12 December 2005

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

Dear Robert, may I just quickly inform you, that he has posted this not only on multiple user talk pages, but also at many article talk pages (where I deleted it quickly) and also at some wiki talk pages. Just to inform you, if you haven't noticed already and if you may want to include the "non-user" talk pages into your evidence. I think posting this on article talk pages is more serious than on user talk pages (apart from the ones of users that have not been involved). Cheers, Str1977 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice arbitration
As a party to her RfC, you might be interested to know a request for arbitration has been filed towards deeceevoice Requests_for_arbitration.

-Justforasecond 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy case. Raul654 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your flattering response. I wish I had time to improve every article at Wikipedia on which I have some expertise. If I have any pet project on Wikipedia related to Roman Catholicism it's the effort to bring Joan of Arc up to featured article status. That article has been through mediation. I find it more productive to start or improve 30 articles than to contest one disputed subject. My university studies related to Nazism ended fifteen years ago and the few books I still have are in storage. Best wishes to you on your efforts. I might make some small contribution here and there, but I'm really not ready to undertake that project. Regards, Durova 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I suspect it's difficult to collaborate with him. Yet when I look at the articles I have to concede that he raises legitimate points.  I suggest you mine his comments on the talk pages for sourced statements that could help to balance the coverage.  Best wishes. Durova 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope
This article should not exist. It was a content fork for a person or people who wouldn't accept the editing consensus in the Pope Pius XII article. Critical biographies do not merit the status of their own article. Our current president, the prior impeached president with all the critical biographies written about them, none have their own stand-alone article. patsw 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents is that the article should exist. After all, we have entries for individual Star Trek episodes. And since we're not wasting paper, a book merits an entry. Brainhell 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MC
I'm wishing you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Str1977 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Robert! I'd like to wish you a very Happy Christmas as well. Or, since I'm a day late, let's make it a very happy Christmas season. I meant to post a message to you yesterday or the day before, but I haven't been at the computer as much as usual. I don't think we agree on absolutely everything, but I do appreciate the obvious integrity and efforts for fairness that you show. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Party
Please note the presence of a third party at Pope Pius II. I will tell you that I am attracted to the legality of this editors mind. I say my bit, and simply alert you to the situation as is. EffK 14:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work
I just came across you being remarkably sensible, calm and careful in dealing with various people who, putting it nicely, did not seem to reflect these same qualities. Well done! I just wanted to commend you for that, and let you know that your efforts are valued and appreciated. Keep up the good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki bot not logging in
Hi, I'm using the standard python wikipedia bot. On the most recent run I have noticed that occasionally it has problem making a change on the English wiki, then succeeds on the second try. I'm thinking that those are probably cases where it actually modified pages without the actual account.

I just downloaded the latest update to the python code, where a problem with log in is fixed (though what it is fixing is not being able to log in at all). I'll monitor this IP address's updates and ask on the mailing list as well.

--Vina 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The IP based update is still happening with the latest code. I have asked the mailing list about it, hopefully the developer can figure out what is the problem.  At the mean time, I've stopped running the bot on the English wiki.  --Vina 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pius XII and the Holocaust
I made some edits to this section in the Pius XII article, but find EffK has leaped in with what amounts to a revert. I haven't taken a stance on the subject matter, but made my edits to tighten up the prose and render it Wiki-readable. Would you take a look please?--shtove 17:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The impression I had was that EffK wrote the top para and then the indented one. I'm not sure I want to get mixed up in this.--19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I see the edit confusion is over (for now). You say EffK has been "flaming away" on the talk pages - is that like a distant comet or one of Saddam's oil-wells?--shtove 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Great Scandal
I've posted a suggestion to rename this to The Great Scandal (Hitler) and perform a radical rewrite to bring the article in line with the argument it's named after. I really don't understand your quarrel with Effk (nor do I want to), but you seem interested in the general subject. My full proposal is at the article talk page. Regards, Durova 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left messages on the talk pages of all the people who've been party to the arbitration. I'll wait for comment from other RfC visitors.  Maybe we can turn this into a good Wikipedia article. Durova 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Re What Now?
Thanks for the comment of my RfA. Sorry about the delay; I was waiting to see what happened. As far as I can tell, nothing needs doing at present. This user pops up briefly from time to time, but doesn't stay around. Tearlach 09:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen master
Well actually, that's the problem. Admins cannot block him. They can block him from articles and they can him ban him for short periods due to 3RR violations, but he can't be blocked for personal attacks and such by the arbcom decision. I'm just looking for some more "teeth" in the remedies since probation isn't altering his behavior one bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep exactly. Probation is useful but it has to have something else with it IMO in case the person does not take to probation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Katefan0
I summarized the issue @ Requests for comment/Katefan0 --CyclePat 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

leaving WP
I saw your comments on Kim Bruning's talk page. It would be a shame if you left Wikipedia. You were of material assistance in dealing the bullying of Ultramarine; and I have seen you consistently reasonable with others. Thanks. Septentrionalis 20:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments from one's talk page
Hi. I saw your comment on the (uncertified) Neutrality RFC:


 *  As far as I know, the consensus of Wikipedians interpret civility as a rule against hostile, unpleasant, or aggressive interaction with other editors, but not as a rule against ignoring other editors. I think that it is also the consensus that a user has the right to remove comments from his own talk page.

Since you are evidently not aware of it, I wanted to point out this wording on Talk_page:


 * Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.

Thanks. --Tabor 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK arbitration
Hello, Robert. Thanks for your recent (well, not so recent) message, and sorry for not answering sooner. If you check your watchlist, you'll probably see that I've decided to start adding evidence to the EffK arbitration page. Indeed, by calling for me to be made a party to the arbitration, he has almost invited me to do so. I share Jimbo's wish that EffK could leave with his dignity intact (assuming that he can't or won't settle down and edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy), but by continuing to post all this speculation about people having entered Wikipedia for the purpose of undoing his posts (or whatever), he's making that increasingly unlikely. I can't understand the arbitrators' delay in reaching a decision. I have no objection to becoming a party in this case (and no particular wish for it either). I intend to add more evidence in the next few days, and then make a statement, if the case hasn't closed at that stage. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I'm still a bit busy with an assignment, but am looking in regularly. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you. This whole thing is entirely self-initated; I have no "inside track" here. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the case; hopefully it won't be much longer. BTW, thanks for your clear presentations of evidence and commentary on that; it'ssomewhat difficult to make head or tail of a lot of the evidence, which is part of why it's taking so long. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've done enough to the article myself that I shouldn't act unilaterally, but I'll look into it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, I think it's best to wait for the arbcom to finish. They seem to be picking up the pace a bit, so maybe it won't be too much longer. Tom Harrison Talk 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Requests for comment/Sarcelles
Hello there Robert McClenon, I saw your outside response at the above RfC page, and have updated the evidence and appended an explanation to why we believe his actions to be a behavioural problem and not a content dispute. Perhaps you'd like to take another look? Thanks. -- Миборовский U 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Johnski
I wanted to thank you for your comments on the arbitration talk page regarding the Johnski arbitration case. I realize given my comments I sound very pushy in terms of my tongue lashing of the arbitration committee, but I (and others) are really trying to get a decent soultion so we don't have to put so much time into this dispute anymore. I guess one obvious soultion would be simply to walk away. As I said, I would rather invest my time positively in Wikipedia (writing and editing articles) rather then feel like I'm in a battle with editors who have no interest in following the rules. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Davidpdx 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK
I summarized evidence on the EffK case as an arbcom clerk, and so ought not step in. You might try asking User:David Gerard. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

20 July 1944
Dear Robert, let me answer your question (even though you are a procateur).

I have to make a rather long sweep:

EffK once posted (on Kaas, I think) a section called "Vatican exchange", which - in his typical style - talked about Kaas being implicated in secret talks in the Vatican between German resistance circles (represented by Josef Müller) through the Vatican to the British government. In this context, he used the same Pater Leiber he now denounces as a source, without worrying at all about his status as confessor. These talks happened early in the war but were also resumed later. The aim was to reach an agreement between a post-Hitler German government and the British government to end the war - the resistance circles wanted to make sure that their plot would not be "abused" by Germany's enemies to her detriment. All these talks came to nothing, as the British government mistrusted either the honesty or the capabalities of the resistance circles.

(BTW. Kaas was barely involved, but at least this inspired me to create the Josef Müller article.)

Now, EffK posted this and I welcomed his effort, as for once he was posting stuff that seemed to have real value. It also didn't hurt that this time it wasn't the old "Vatican is the bane of humanity" storyline ... or so I thought. EffK, as later posts revealed, denounced these Vatican exchanges as evil. Why? Because, under the attempted agreement, Germany would not have been crushed as she was in 1945 but actually would have retained Austria, the Sudetenland and even parts of Poland. This was enough for EffK to denounce these talks as evil.

What shocked me most was not so much his anger at these German gains (I mean it is not outrageous to criticize this as rewarding the aggressor), but that EffK completely disregard the alternatives and the merits of such an agreement. Had the war stopped in 1940 there would have been no Holocaust and there would have been only a few months of war - with much fewer casualties.

In this context, 20 July 1944 comes into play. On that date, some Wehrmacht officers, led by the Colonel Stauffenberg, tried to oust Hitler from power - Hitler was to be killed by a bomb and then the military would have assumed power, arresting the SS. The coup failed for various reasons (I can elaborate if you want to) and was followed by a purge of the military. (EffK probably would have objected to old Prussian Junker militarists coming to power).

Now people have always argued whether this attempt would have achieved something and in the end Stauffenberg said that it had to be done, even if nothing was to be won, merely for the sake of having tried, even if too late. But, in fact, the coup would have accomplished one thing: the war would have been over much sooner. And in this context the famous calculation is cited: more people were killed in the few months following 20 July than in the whole war before.

If this is true for July 1944, it is just as true for summer 1940. But EffK, judging from his comments, prefers a long bloody war resulting in complete defeat of the aggressor nation to a quick end to bloodshed. This is remarkable, given the things he has accused me of.

Hope that wasn't too longish but I wanted to make it as clear as possible. I post it here, but you can copy it to anywhere you like. Cheers, Str1977 20:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, that's interesting what you are saying. Is it because your grandfather/father would have returned from war a years earlier, or something along the line?

As for your other post, I am shocked: Will EffK really be allowed to use other languages? He could also argue that it wasn't English what he ... but no. I remember that, according to his interpretation, the use of languages other than English is forbidden on Wikipedia ... along with jokes, irony and proper punctuation.

Anyway, here's a link you might want to look at. I think you know what I mean ;-) Str1977 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I hope you have noticed the irony in my "shocked" paragraph. Thanks for the information - and you are right both a great-uncle and my grand-father (the one recently maligned by ...) fell in the war, the latter in the last days if April. But then again, my mother might have never met my father. I will in the not so distant future post a comment about the "Scandal" article. Cheers, Str1977 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Robert, yes I have red what the cat said (sounds like a good title "What the cat said"). I wouldn't bite him either. As for his fears, that is why I posted the jimmy akin link. There are some similiraties. No wonder he has no problems with Avro Manhattan. I have found it interesting that he has found his Flamekeeper password again recently. I think you have also witnessed the can-can he did here. Cheers, Str1977 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Advocacy/Mediation
I would like to speak with you confidentially re: assistance needed. Please advise if you are available to discuss and how this can be facilitated. Thanks much. ||| Miles.D. |||02-5-2006 18:50 (UTC)

Received your message but don't know how to locate your email addy. Please advise. thank you. ||| Miles.D. |||02-6-2006 00:09 (UTC)

User:EffK
From what I can see User:EffK is not happy with the result of his recent dealings with ArbCom which are subject to a motion to close, so he has been going around removing any comment he's made with the edit summary "criminalised". My only involvement has been to undo some of that and block an IP he was using apparently to evade a block for the disruptive behaviour. --pgk( talk ) 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said it appears he was removing all comments he had previously added. His account had already been blocked by another admin for that, he then continued with that utilising IP addresses, which also got blocked. Bulk removing content is generally considered disruptive and as such is subject to a block to prevent further disruption. --pgk( talk ) 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Loonies
Thanks for clarifying it for me. I suspected that something like that was going on. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shiloh Shepherd Dog RfC Question
I was the primary author of the RfC in question; several editors, including MilesD. had expressed interest in initiating an RfC, but are rather new editors and unfamiliar with the process. I had first attempted to explain to those editors how to write the RfC, but after several failed attempts, decided it would be best to author it myself rather than allow the situation to continue to fester.

As far as the request for mediation, it appears that it was requested on December 15th and  removed on January 9th  by Redwolf24. Tina M. Barber and other vested parties made several responses within the request from December 15th through around December 20th which appear to be little more than restatements of their various arguments for changing the content of the article.

Let me know if I can do anything further to assist. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more accurate to state that mediation fails because multiple editors have feelings of ownership and difficulty cooperating to develop concensus. While Tina M. Barber stands out due to her personal attacks and inflexibility, the inability of other editors to compromise has ascerbated the sitation; many of the editors involved have never edited elsewhere on Wikipedia. There have been multiple suggestions that a statement of the dispute be included in the article, however, neither side is willing to compromise or even discuss said suggestion.  At this time, the article is esentially held hostage by the two groups as every change is met with days of what looks much more like arguing than discussion; I believe further attempts at mediation would be fruitless.  Unfortunately, it appears all lesser avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted and an attempt at arbitration may be required. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy
Regarding the message you left on my talk page... I wish I could have gotten in touch with someone earlier, because things were a real mess. In a nutshell: Someone was issuing personal attacks against me. I attempted to work through WP:DR to address the issue, but the individual just kept deleting my requests off his talk page and accusing me of harassment. I proceeded to the next step of preparing an RfC, which I kept on a subpage at User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute. The individual stepped up his attacks, accusing me of lying, scamming, issuing worse attacks on him, and engaging in a steady pattern of harassment (all false). An admin took his accusations at face value though, and I was permanently locked out of Wikipedia without warning (or even a courtesy note on my talk page) for "not being here to create an encyclopedia". The block was lifted the next day, a big debate raged at AN/I, and a couple admins battled about whether or not the personal attacks should be removed. After a great deal of back and forth, the worst of the attacks were refactored. At the moment, things have been quiet for about a week, though there are still several personal attacks which I would like to have removed. In the absence of that though, I have agreed to a compromise, where I have a rebuttal subpage, and am okay on letting the matter drop. If you know of a way that I can get the remaining attacks removed, I'm open to hearing it, but otherwise I'm willing to just move on. Thanks. :) Elonka 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(response) We were not edit-warring, and there have been no new attacks for the last few days (though plenty of the old ones are still lying around). The best summary of what was going on can be read here, with evidence here. Those two pages were viewed as "attack pages", which got me locked out when this thread was started at AN/I. The lockout was then lifted and this thread at AN/I ensued. With the lockout lifted, I was finally able to defend myself and posted this summary of the situation. I then engaged in  a discussion with Admin Phil Welch, who supported me in terms of refactoring some of the worst of the attacks. I agreed to the compromise that Phil Welch proposed, though I learned later that DreamGuy had been posting other personal attacks while the negotiation had been going on. I would like those removed as well, but to be honest, I'm also willing to just let the whole thing drop unless you are confident that it would be fairly straightforward to get those attacks removed. Any "wrap up" status reports can be read here. Thanks. Elonka 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your recent comment at User talk:SlimVirgin
Hi. I don't believe we've had any personal interaction before, but I have seen you around quite a bit (indeed, we joined Wikipedia at around the same time). I wanted to let you know, however, that this comment is not at all helpful. The "situtation" with Gmaxwell has more or less diffused, so it probably wasn't worth mentioning it in the first place, at least not in a public venue. However, I have to take issue with your characterization of the situtation, not only because it's widly innacurate, but also because that innacuracy propagates poor judgement from an editor who has regained her senses. I don't mean to sound rude, but I hope that she does not take your comment to heart, because it is, well, wrong. Gmaxwell is curt, overly agressive, rude, sometimes, yes. But he's not FuelWagon. Far from it. Why you would think that bringing up the most stressfull incident in recent history would help anything is beyond me as well. Gmaxwell has many, many usefull contributions, FuelWagon has almost none. It's not a fair comparison, and it doesn't help at all. Please consider this a helpful suggestion rather than a rude criticism, but please consider the situation carefully before making a comment such as that one again. Thanks.--Sean Black (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to SlimVirgin. She said and did some unwise things because of her stressful encounter with Gmaxwell. Now, however, she's just fine. I really, really, can't see how Gmaxwell could be considered worse than FuelWagon. But, if we can agree to disagree, that is acceptable, if not desirable.--Sean Black (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed
The case you filed has been closed. EffK is banned from editing for one year, and from editing all Catholicism articles. He is also to be banned from any articles he disrupts. This will be enforced by block. Johnleemk | Talk 09:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

65.182.172.x
Yes, one of the IPs has been blocked for a month by Essjay with the intention that, should this user continue to edit along the same lines using other IPs in this block, they will be blocked as well. So far, so good. I'm working with an admin off-Wikipedia to try to get the personal information (not just mine, but all of it) removed. I do not believe blocking this user will be a loss to Wikipedia because I do not get the impression that this person was here to contribute to Wikipedia, and I believe that was amply demonstrated by his/her response to the RfC. - AdelaMa e (talk - contribs) 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rl's page is still waiting
Thank you for polite reply to my reply on Talk:Sean Black. I didn't see it before writing the message to you here.--Gmaxwell 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's ONE example of McNeight-speak
Your post to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment does not provide enough information so that anyone can review the threats and personal attacks that you claim were made by User:McNeight. If you want help, please at least tell me what talk page they were made on. Also, I can see that you have been uncivil and have engaged in personal attacks. You will get more assistance in Wikipedia with respect to uncivil treatment if you are civil yourself. Robert McClenon 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Braaad

QUOTE from McNeight: Wikipedia is a community. The focus is not on you or me, but the encyclopedia. Create as many user names as you want, but eventually your "personality" will come through. If you can't or won't interact with people in a normal manner (hint: take a look at meta:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia:Civility for some tips on human-human interaction), then get the fuck out. McNeight 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) SIGNED! Because I'm not a bitter and petty authority-wannabe attention-freak coward.

I think my favorite part is: "...get the fuck out." Please protect me from this dangerous creature!! Braaad 16:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

brainhell
Thanks Robert. I signed my comment with four tildes, at least the one that appeared on my own page. I apologize if I posted it elsewhere in the wrong pace, or without a signature. I see that Lucky 6.9's user page now says only "Vacation time..." and displays a stress meter. His user talk page says "Wikistress is building. I, therefore, have left the building for a brief time." I see no acknowledgment that he realizes that he lost his temper. This in your inference. But even were that true, and despite his apology to me, and his promise not to delete my posts (without addressing what he'll do to the posts of others), he has shown himself temperamentally unsuited to administrate. It's quite likely to happen again. I respect your view that "I think that would be a mistake on our part that would be comparable to his mistake in losing his temper." However, I disagree. This administrator is a hazard to the Wikipedia community and I request that you go ahead and request to have him de-adminned, according to the procedure. I will do my best to post this to your talk page and not your user page. Brainhell 17:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

...brainhell received this email from Lucky 6.9:

''Thank you so much for the continued attack. I thought we were over our misunderstanding. I see I was wrong. I'm saving you the trouble of pursuing this matter any further. 20,000 edits and six featured articles...and one guy comes along and completely ruins the experience. Have fun since I am quitting Wikipedia.''

Nonetheless, I think the user should be de-adminned. Whether Lucky 6.9 chooses to continue be involved is up to him. I would welcome him, as long as he's no longer an admin.

Brainhell 01:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert,

Thanks for your assistance to date with my complaint against Lucky 6.9. I realize that we're all volunteers, and I am impressed both by Wikipedia and the culture. I respect that you feel it would not be wise for me to request that Lucky 6.9 be stripped o administrative rights, but I would like to go ahead, for the reasons stated on my talk page, and yours. I haven't heard from you since then. (I realize that we're all volunteers). Would you like to continue to assist me, or should this issue be passed to another user? Recent developments are that on 2/12/06, Lucky 6.9 put me on indefinite block. He left this explanation on my talk page (which you can see in the history):

"That comment on your user page regarding hobbies, cars and political leanings on other user pages did it for me. I refuse to be taunted by you any further. You are off this site for good. I tried to help you; you chose to rub my nose in my error and have continued to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation is aware of the situation. If you have any further questions, talk to them. - Lucky 6.9 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)"

While blocked, I sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org, asking for help. The matter was looked into and this morning (2/13/06) I got the email:

"I have reviewed this situation and determined that the block appears to have been unjustified.  I have removed the block.  While I think you could have handled yourself better than you did, I did not see anything in your conduct that merited a block at all, let alone the blocks you received.

Yours sincerely, Kelly Martin"

When I attempted to go to Lucky 6.9's user page, the system said that there is no such page. I would like to proceed with steps to ensure that if this individual ever does reappear in Wikipedia, that he no longer have administrative powers. I realize that the people who make the decision may not agree with me. I can accept the outcome, but I would like to proceed. I hope you are available to process the issue. Brainhell 18:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert,

I know that you may be very busy right now (and are a volunteer), but if possible, could you please acknowledge that you have seen my latest communication, and give a rough timeframe for your anticipated response? Or let me know if I should approach someone else who handles RFAs Thanks! Brainhell 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for yourh help so far. Have you noticed tht the RFC project page has been gone for a couple od days now? I wonder how it got deleted.

I respectfully disagree on letting well enough alone for now. There's no harm in more of a flap when the flap is already aired: He knows I seek to have him deadminned. His indefinite block of me is highly relevant to the case that he needs to be prevented from ever doing this to others. I'll seek to inform other Wikipotentates about this, as soon as I get around to it. Since you provide no URL, I'll try to find out on my own what the RFC process is, and try to guess for myself what may happen to an RFC that is incomplete, and then left deleted for two or more days.

Robert,

Here are the latest comments from the talk page (though the project page is still missing). one is from ESkog, one is from me, and the rest is fom lucky 6.9:

From my point of view, it appears that you are needlessly prolonging a simple misunderstanding into a giant legalistic mess. Yes, Lucky probably screwed up with respect to you. But it appears to have been resolved through normal channels until every time you keep trying to bring it back up. Try to assume some good faith here and let it go. Nobody's going to be deadminned for one instance of reacting poorly to personal attacks. This is tying up two potential contributors' time, energy, and emotion when we have an encyclopedia to build. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

ESkog, "Nobody's going to be deadminned for one instance..." But it was more than just one, and therre were the associated transgressions as well. My comments prior to reading about the Wikipedia process of avoiding flames were quite civil, even tame by real-world stabdards. I didn't know about the Wikipedia ap[proach until I did my own research. So if you could, please inform me of any 'personal attacks' I made. Would you like to be indefinitely banned for the contents of your user page? Brainhell 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be if your entire user page was a backhanded attack. FYI, I have requested de-adminning and it's been done. I no longer wish to contribute to this project when a someone as vengeful, spiteful, sociopathic and hateful as you is contributing to this whole mess both here and on his personal blog, blowing this whole thing out of proportion. You should know that I'm leaving in good standing and that I can return as an administrator if I choose to. I didn't delete the RfC page and it's only because of an oversight that this talk page is still here. Have a nice life...that is, once you actually get a life outside of trolling the internet. The former Lucky 6.9 via 67.53.212.40 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Go ahead and put this on your blog. In fact, I wish you would. Loser. - 67.53.212.40 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Robert, in terms of the URL explaining the RfC process -- you DID provide it, when you posted notice of the RfC to my talk page. Thanks. Brainhell 17:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility with Uncivil Users
While I understand your point at an intellectual level, it is very hard to continue to turn the other cheek, as eventually you just run out of cheeks. The whole system for reporting abusive users needs an overhaul. I wrote my RfC back in December after repeated attempts by myself, other editors and adminstrators to engage Braaad in civil discussion failed. The RfC only begins to document the abuse he has heaped on myself as well as other random editors who have the audacity to do something he doesn't agree with. For example, this edit in December where Braaad claims that a reversion by User:Sputnikcccp of his user page is vandalism, even though Sputnikcccp had no way of knowing that Braaad was using User:68.112.201.90 as a sock puppet. More recent rants can be found at User talk:Wrathchild-K, who had the nerve to nominate NAVCRUIT 1133.101 for speedy deletion.

At any rate, thank you for your advice, and I will continue to wait for someone to put a stop to this abuse. McNeight 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe that Linuxbeak doesn't want to get further involved because he wants to avoid a conflict of interest, as he has also argued with Braaad. He also seems to be quite busy lately with school and bureaucracy matters.
 * As for WP:ANI, I've posted on February 8th, January 30th, January 28th (where I was told to read up on the dispute resolution process and ask for mediation, which I did on January 28th, was replied to by a sock puppet of Braaad on February 1st, and was deleted on February 2nd). I also reminded Linuxbeak on his talk page about the RfC and asked if anything was being done about it on January 27th.
 * Prior to that, I posted on Administrators' noticeboard on December 19th about his harassment of User:Royboycrashfan and User:Sputnikcccp, and posted notices about his vandalism of a talk archive, and his removing of information from a talk page on multiple occasions.
 * To be honest, I'd never heard of WP:PAIN before. The user conduct process seems to be poorly documented (which is how I wound up asking for mediation) and painfully slow. If this has to escalate to a RfAr, then I could use an advocate. Thanks. McNeight 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiasco
Well, you answered your own question. His disruption has been going on for a long time, he's still active and unrepentant (though he now limits himself to preaching on his talk page) and the RfC is extremely long both in terms of evidence and the signatures of the editors censoring him, so I think it can be fairly upgraded from 'tiff' via 'argy-bargy' to 'fiasco'. Perhaps 'fiasco' isn't entirely accurate, since the long-term damage is relatively limited, but as such a lot of time and effort has been spent dealing with him I think it's as good a word as any. --Malthusian (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Woops
Sorry for the minor edit that hid the Shiloh section on the arbitration page, appears that a template line was somehow deleted during a minor edit. Was attempting to clearn up two small errors, not certain how it turned the RfArb invisible, but thank you for correcting. Gwyllgi 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm Page
Karl wants arbitration, and I think I do too, and you call in someone?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm Article
Karl, has on his own initiative posted his own version of the Dilecto Dilectori section. I have posted him personally, and on the Discussion page for that article: I am removing his addition pending the conclusion of the discussion with a consensus.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin
Are you an admin? Do you want to be one? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anselm of Canterbury
Nolo problemo. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Time for another look at Talk:Anselm of Canterbury. I think the sticking point will be whether the Boswell-McGuire view of St. Anselm is a fringe view or a mainstream view, i.e. the deduction they make that the friendship language the "old school" historians saw is really a coded homosexual valentine (how appropriate for February 14) patsw 03:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Shiloh. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

brainhell RFC
Robert, thanks for compiling and posting the RFC on Lucky 6.9. I'm impressed that this community of volunteers has a structure and process. I think that it's worth the time to pursue the RFC, given my experience in the matter, and not wanting others to have such an experience. Brainhell 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Brainhell RFC template
Robert, maybe you got distracted or something before actually inserting the top instructions and the date on the RFC page, or maybe there was a database glitch, because it's still not there. No big deal, but I thought you'd like to know. Best, Bishonen | 美少年 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Looks fine now, thanks. Bishonen | 美少年 21:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

FuelWagon
Ok, thanks for the info. I also agree about Everyking. --Phroziac. o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like filing RFCs though. :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne RFC
Hi! I saw your thoughtful little comment on the Licorne RFC. I completely agree about avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, which is why I haven't blocked him since those early days when he was getting involved in excessive revert warring and violating 3RR all of the time. Thanks for taking the time to comment, it is appreciated. --Fastfission 17:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hello. My RFA against Chad Bryant has nothing to do at all with his problems with Alex Cain. I do not see HOW you arrived at the conclusion based on your statements on my RFA request. Mr. Bryant has been posting supposed real life information about myself, this has nothing to do with his war with the troll Alex Cain. Thank you. TruthCrusader 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Happyjoe RFC
Hi. Thank you for your comment on the Happyjoe RFC page. I am a newbie and I'm always glad to learn when I'm doing something wrong so that I can correct it. That said, a quick glance at the RFC guidelines reveals no prohibition against threaded comments on an RFC page. The closest thing I can find is "Don't be confrontational." I personally believe there is still a possibility of reasoned debate and compromise with Happyjoe, and that's why I made the comments. Let me ask you this question: If threaded responses were inappropriate, where should I have put my responses to his comments? Thank you once again, Applejuicefool 13:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Advice - RE: AMA Requests for Assistance
Dear Robert,

Can you please assist. I would like some advice on what approach should be adopted in this situation 1) to have appropriate sanctions brought to bear and 2) to have the record corrected. I think I can handle the advocacy side possibly with guidance from someone experienced in matters Wikipedian.

Any advice and suggestions about the most appropriate way to take this forward would be appreciated. I assume there is no Wiki "gaol" to put Wiki criminals behind bars, nor any Wiki crime of cyberspace forgery?


 * Summary: An Administrator fabricates a complaint by deleting content himself from the Admins Noticeboard, falsifies the record, imposes a block and brazenly maintains his stance even when challenged by other editors.


 * Evidence:-
 * I reported an incident fully documented with evidence to the Administrator's notice board []
 * the Administrator deletes content from the report which content shows the report is well-founded []
 * the Administrator applies a false edit summary stating "Reverted edits" ... "to last version by Essjay" but there is no "last version by Essjay"
 * User:Essjay then improperly blocks the other editor (ie. me) [] for no valid reason
 * simultaneously with imposing the improper block, User:Essjay surreptitiously deletes more content - this time from the my talk page [].
 * when challenged by a third party editor [] User:Essjay is so confident he will be protected he says "I suggest you raise the issue on AN/I;" and says "I stand behind my block of an IP address that was caught redhanded removing commentary from AN/I and harassing other contributors." Note however:-
 * the only commentary removed was by User:Essjay and none was removed by the blocked user (me)
 * the evidence in the blocked user's documented AN/I report shows clearly he was not harrassing but was reporting harrassment, baiting and disruption by the user that User:Essjay here protects.
 * the third party editor then points out (see second green block of text here []) that it was User:Essjay who deleted the content from AN/I and not me
 * another third party editor asks User:Essjay to explain [] but User:Essjay again provides no specifics. However, what he does say links the block directly to the blocked editor's AN/I report on Wikipedia.

In addition to having sanctions for this discreditable behaviour, I would like the record corrected so that there is no block recorded against my IP address.

Interestingly, moments after challenges by the third party editors User:Essjay announces on his talk/user page on midday Thursday he is (conveniently) away for the weekend. This is of course double-edged as it allows time to look at the best way forward.

If you can help I would be grateful.

The Invisible Anon 12:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ril
I'm on extended wikibreak as from now. Any evidence I have have against Ril, I have already supplied on the KJV evidence page. Feel free to use this as you wish (copy and refactor onto a new case if that happens). If you follow the links there to the RfCs you will find more. SimonP's evidince I think shows that he was speedy tagging Bible (sic) verses from an IP very recently, in clear defiance of his previous case. E-mail me if I can help further. Good luck. --Doc ask?  01:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-islamic POV?
Heh. I'm pretty sure -Ril-'s editing has nothing to do with a POV. He's just trying to piss people off. As for UninvitedCompany, I don't know anything you don't know about it. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥
 * I asked him on IRC, and he's not anti-islamic. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC on john o
Thanks for contributing your "outside view" to my RfC -- I think it's an accurate description.

One question, though - assuming that attempting to reason with a user is more than posting warnings on his/her talk page, then I am the only person who has tried to reason with John oh. If this assumption is correct, then would vandalism in progress be a more appropriate place to list this user?

Thank you very much for your feedback. Feezo (Talk) 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WZTV
Mr. McClenon-- It seems to me that User:Mtstroud is overreacting in his attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. Below is the exchange by e-mail between he and I that he deemed "disrespectful" to him. I honestly don't see his point of view. We have conflicting sources. My source (and there are several like it across the web) shows the station with a 1968 sign-on date. His single source shows a 1969 sign-on date. There is no information from the station's official website that would lend itself to either source. Below is the exchange. You may judge for yourself his claim of disrespect, or you may forward it on to another person of authority. I am willing to comply with any further investigation into the matter.


 * Date:	 Mon, 6 Mar 2006 19:50:37 GMT

To:	"Zpb52"  Subject:	RE: WZTV, Nashville From:	"Mtstroud"  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

Sir:

I am sorry I have been irritating you with my revisions, but the source I am using for the 1969 sign-on date for WZTV in Nashville is the site www.nashvilletv.org, which is run by a native of that city, and is likely a more reliable and accurate source than the one you have been using.

I hope you do not take any of this as an insult; perhaps you might consult that site's manager ("Bob W.") and get him to verify it for you.

Best wishes.


 * Date:	 Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:38:48 -0800 (PST)

From:	"Zack Bennett"  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert Subject:	RE: WZTV, Nashville To:	"Mtstroud" 

I visit that site often. 1968, in fact, IS the actual date the station signed on. The site I used was a quick reference point for you. I, too, am a native of Nashville.


 * From:	"mtstroud@juno.com"  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert

Date:	Tue, 7 Mar 2006 01:52:31 GMT To:	zpb52@yahoo.com Subject:	RE: WZTV, Nashville

Mr. Bennett:

For your disrespectful attitude toward a fair comment I made and blatant disregard of Wikipedia's main rule concerning editing, namely that you should not submit something if you do not want it "mercilessly" edited, I am going to report this incident to Wikipedia and attempt to have you banned from the site. Do not reply to this message; I will further add any more comments you make as evidence.

Mike Stroud Date:	 Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:55:21 -0800 (PST) From:	"Zack Bennett"  Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert Subject:	RE: WZTV, Nashville To:	"mtstroud@juno.com" 

I'm sorry you feel that I was disrespectful to you. It was not my intent.

Z

Thanks . ..
for the heads-up on that most unhelpful set of typos (or Freudian slips, or whatever they were.) It's been the kind of day when, if I had a userpage, I'd put this on it if it weren't a copyvio. Monicasdude 03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Independent source for WZTV
WZTV was formerly WMCV-TV. Here is an independent site which lends itself to the 1968 date. It states a certain person was employed by and appeared on the station from October 1968 to November 1969.

After it's cancellation in 1967 Bramming took a radio announcing job, but re-emerged as Dr. Lucifer between Oct. 1968 and Nov. 1969 on WMCV-TV17, and independent station, to host weekend horror movies.

This should provide another source which would not have supplied the Wikipedia clones with an actual sign-on date, but it confirms the station was on the air before 8/5/1969. --Zpb52 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just read your comment on Guanaco, MarkSweep
I read your statement carefully, and understand the concept of judge-made law, however your request seems to border on a request for ex-post facto law. There is only one party violating process here, MarkSweep. Can you find an exception?

My question to you is: why is it so important to bind this case- which has clear present-day issues- to one adjudicating the broader questions of userboxes in general, which would be both complex and broad in effect?

I'd look forward to opposing you in that case as an advocate, and the result would be useful for the community, whatever the decision. Trying the issue here runs a solid risk of being grossly unfair to Guanaco and possibly even MarkSweep.

StrangerInParadise 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Making the case without the other side
I've seen most of what you've mentioned in the past. But, do you really think -Ril- isn't chronically angry? He seems a bit angry to me. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 13:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I got you. I can agree with that. ;) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 01:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril
Actually, I'm saying he's used atleast one to bitch about himself and demand he be banned, to confuse everyone. Dwho was very evil, the sockpuppet mixed real criticism against -Ril- with bullshit (OMG Doc_glasgow is a sockpuppet of -Ril-!). I'm told he used atleast one other a long time ago. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, Melissadolbeer was definitely doing the same thing in 2005. And I found -Ril- accusing his sock of having a sock (Poorman), on Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded). --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Arbitration
Hi. Please go to this Request A Comment page and see if we provided enough evidence so that the page would move from its current candidate status. Also, how can we bring this page, and another one to the attention of the Arbitration Committee? Zmmz 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be kind enough to let us know move which specific contents in this page you wish us to move to the talk page you mentioned, and who can actually move them. I`m sorry, but after gathering all the required evidence etc. we are a bit over-whelmed by the bucreaucy. ThanksZmmz 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On behalf of the team of editors who submitted this request we thank you very much for all your help. Certainly the user should have a chance to respond, and we could certainly use an advocate such as you.  The answer to your question about mediation is; yes--we have tried compromising, involving neutral users, getting a third opinion, and even asked a third party to set-up a Mediation Cabal, the link to which was provided in the Rfc page.  Unfortunately, they have all failed, and because [so] much of our time, and efforts are now concentrated in battling disputes, providing references etc., at this point we welcome any decision made by the Arbitration Committee; as long as, there is  [a] decision--period.  Again, feel free to act as a mediator, and/or our advocate; we will cooperate with you fully, and thanks for your efforts.Zmmz 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The informal mediation is currently making progress under Talk:Persian_people. --Fast e n talk/med 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As of yesterday 03/08/06 the user in question still started removing the words he disagrees with, initiating two edit wars, and even moving an article to another page without discussing it with anyone. It`s unlikely that he will permenantly agrees to the consensus, and may restart his edit wars after sometime; this have been going-on for too long. Yet, we still hope the mediation can work first.Zmmz 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Some editors commented in this page. Do you want me to move their comments to the designated talk page? Also user Aucaman hasn`t accepted the mediation suggestions, and his activities are off-the-chart at this point. He just broke the 3rr again in both the Persian people, and Parsi articles.Zmmz 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in light of your well intentioned advice, I have done the following which can be seen here. And, please know that it is correct that I have not attacked anyone in here, however, I`m not sure what the following would be considered, yet, I immediately wrote the following message;......recently on a page that I honestly thought was a nomination page for Aucaman as an admin, I wrote the following so others could be informed that the user may not be qualified as an admin--certainly not now--I wrote, I`m not sure if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported as an abusive editor in Wikipedia.Zmmz 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC). If this has caused a problem, then in the intrest of civility, I apologize for that.Zmmz 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, RM if you are around please read and review my response, in your mail, and get back to me today.Zmmz 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I responded here. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Thank youZmmz 05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RM, when you have time, please let User:Zora know her name was mentioned in the ArbCom for Aucaman; it might be more appropriate for you to do so, instead of, me. Thanks againZmmz 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please let me know what others are next, since now the case has been accepted. If you need anything from me let me know.Zmmz 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete Mediation Request
You submitted the mediation request Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-09 Iranian people but it's just an empty form with no content. This is unlikely to receive further attention if you don't fill out the form. --Fast e n talk/med 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

AMA
Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome.Gator (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm bad
My best articles are Corded ware culture and Saint Isididore, but I am pretty bad. Right now, the rabid right is trying to do the Jim Nussle article. --FourthAve 07:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Holi greetings. Your page is always under construction, and I am always greeting friends here. --Bhadani 13:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your assistance and expertise is appreciated!
user:LukasPietsch, possibly an advocate of user:Aucaman, has joined the discussions on Requests_for_comment/Aucaman. user:LukasPietsch first order of buissiness was to remove many comments regarding the case from the main page. He later submitted an outside view in defense of user:Aucaman. And today, user:LukasPietsch has submitted yet another outside view under the name Outside View by Lukas Pietsch IImaking accusations based on assumptions, and borderline personal attacks against the users who have submitted the RFC case. Are all of user:LukasPietsch's actions appropriate? Can you please take a look into this issue and assist us with your expertise. --ManiF 20:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Robert. I've been away for nearly 3 months and slowly getting started again. What is user:Zmmz talking about, and why is he asking me for help?


 * Can somebody summarize the "Iranian advocacy" thing in 100 words or so? --Uncle Ed 13:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try (although I've been implicated here as a party to the dispute): A group of Iranian editors (ManiF, Zmmz and Kash) are concerned about what they see as a cabal of Anti-Iranian POV pushers (Zora, Aucaman, Ahwaz). Others see them as an organised POV-pushing faction trying to own Iran-related articles themselves. They are particularly enraged about Aucaman's heavy POV insistance against certain uses of the term "Aryan" in Persian people. Some of the editors concerned are less than familiar with Wikipedia procedures and tend to mess up discussions, make rather imprecise accusations against each other etc. There have been personal attack issues and a general breakdown of AFG. There's an (abortive) Mediation Cabal procedure) and now this parallel RfC against Aucaman. The proponents of the RfC have apparently now realized they are lost at sea with Wikipedia procedures, and need assistance getting their case organized properly. Which would be desirable indeed. Lukas (T. 13:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Uncle Ed. I think because Lukas is active on the opposing side, and because I was the one who set up the Rfc, it would be much more appropriate for me to summarize the issue. I`ll write a brief summary and submit in an hour--if that OK with you, or you still need one?. ThanksZmmz 19:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I really don`t think this Rfc is working out, besides the fact that it`s a mess--much like our other efforts, such as the Mediation Cabal this seems doomed, and Aucaman see no light of reason. How can we bring this in front of the Arbitration Committee? ThanksZmmz 21:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, any news yet? Please let me if you need anything. Thank youZmmz


 * Add user:Diyako. He has instigated problems today and vandalized. I have asked one of the administrators to sort him. Look at my talk page. He uses fake sources to justify claims and consantly acts as a vandal along with user:Acuman. Manik666 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA self-nom
Hey there. I noticed you had a little trouble with your RfA. I hope you didn't mind that I fixed it for you. I also removed the listing from WP:RfA until you have answered the questions and accepted the self-nom (yeah, you have to do that). Once you have answered your questions, feel free to reinsert the link on WP:RfA, but make sure it goes on the top of the page instead of the bottom as new nominations always go on the top. Also, make sure you update the closing time basing it one week after you list your RfA on WP:RfA, not one week from when you created the RfA. If you have any questions, leave me a message. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you can disregard most of it. I was under the assumption it was standard practice to wait until the questions were answered before listing the rfa on WP:RfA.  I guess not as Francs2000 moved the RfA up to the top instead of reverting it as I did.  Anyway, happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
You seem to have cut the other RfA, in particular the part about parties being notified. JoshuaZ 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman's Request for arbitration
Hi Robert,

The statement that you wrote in Aucaman's Request for arbitration is good, but there are some things that need to be corrected:


 * Aucaman wasn't blocked for breaking the 3RR - well he was - but on a page that was unrelated to this dispute
 * What shouldn't be emphasized is the personal attacks part, which I don't the evidence is solid enough for, but the fact that he has been unwilling to compromise on the issue. He wants the word Aryan removed from all Iran-related articles. For a good summary of the conflict read this.

I just wanted to let you know that some of the things in your statement need to be fixed. I have attempted to meditate the dispute when it first begun but it became too large for me to handle.

Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think I pretty much said what I had to say. Just read the link I gave you and you'll be fine. ;) --Khoikhoi 03:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but is not citing Non-Existant sources or blank pages Illegal in Wikepedia
You need verification right? It seems user:InShaneee allows the problamatic editors to do as they wish. On the Kurdistan page. The citation for the claims are non-existant and almost random pages. InShaneee has not even looked at the or has said that the material can not be judged. That is ridicules the material has nothing to do with the consented statement and one only needs to look at it. This is the sort of behaviour that users:Diyako and users:Acuman are involved in which trnalsates into the frustration of many, many other users. Manik666 03:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You wanted evidence on Acuman here is some partial evidence. You can dig up the rest
It has to do with an old discussion in the Kurds and Kurdistan articles and how it was being vandalized and phoney sources were being used. It was pointed out to user:Acuman and Heja, but the ignored it. Read my talk page. It gives you the lead and the trail. The digging in the archieves someone else can do. Manik666 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz/Aucaman case
Dear Robert,

this comes to you under the white flag of parley. :-)

I see you are acting as advocate in the Zmmz vs. Aucaman case. I thought it fair to inform you that I am probably going to get involved in that case too. The question is currently whether that will be as advocate for Aucaman, or as a simple outside voice submitting evidence, or as a semi-involved party with claims of my own against Zmmz. The latter option depends a bit on the behaviour of your client. He has recently been making statements against me that I find have crossed the borderline into wiki-libel. He accuses me of stalking and "harassing" him, and of "manipulat[ing] the system" and "buy[ing] the sympathy of the admins , which is defamatory not only against me but against the admins in question too. What is worse, in my view, he has been prepared to side with an abuser in a totally unrelated case, who had contacted him as a potential ally, and to whom he responded positively . This abuser had been making blatantly libellous allegations against my real-world professional identity including threats of real-life harassment ("I'll send some documents concerning you to the Hamburg University" etc., ). I will give Zmmz the benefit of the doubt that when he first reacted to the anon's approaches he hadn't seen this attack/threat, but he later wrote the following to me at a time when he clearly had read it: "Lukas, the things the other user had called you [...], is not much different from your own malicious language that you have used with me" You may understand that I am upset about this comparison. My offer to Zmmz is: for him to retract the allegations I have listed above against me, and then for both of us to refrain from bringing up our mutual personal differences of the last few days within the Arbcom case. Alternatively, I am of course fully prepared to have my own behaviour reviewed by Arbcom together with his. I am aware I have been rather harsh against him, and he obviously bears me a grudge for that now, although I trust Arbcom will find my behaviour - but possibly not his - well inside the bounds of the legitimate. I am writing this to you because he has been extremely touchy against any approaches of mine on his own talkpage lately. You might want to consult with him what course of action he prefers. Thanks for your attention --Lukas (T. 14:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:LukasPietsch
I'm not familiar with ArbCom process. User:LukasPietsch who has been acting as Aucaman's advocate for some time now, has added a new section to Aucaman arbitration case, in the capacity of a "semi-involved party" defending Aucaman while inditing me and several others in the case. Is he allowed to do this? If yes, do I need to comment on the case? Would I need an advocate of my own? --ManiF 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Aucaman, Diyako, Heja helweda, Muhamed
You may want to comment on it. -- Cool CatTalk 13:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Robert! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentor
Thank you again for volunteering! You are now a mentor. You should probably introduce yourself to T-man, and make sure you are familiar with the current situation. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case is now closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Your adminship nomination didn't achieve consensus. Please look at the reasons voters opposed your nomination and this will be a big aid to succeeding in the future. Many initially failed nominees have gone on to be admins later. Cheers, Cecropia 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance and/or want another opinion on something, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again. Pepsidrinka 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2
A final decision has been reached in the above Arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Aucaman
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Aucaman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. McClenon, would you like me provide you with some diffs, or do you prefer that I submit the diffs personally?Zmmz 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Riddle of the past
Dear Robert, hope all is going well. Today I reread some of my post at "Pius XII" and stumbled across an alusion I left unsolved and also a typo I included. I have fixed the latter [here]. To dispell the mystery, the quote I was referring to was by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Cheers, (self-professed) Str1977 (smile back) 07:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Aucaman
This arbitration case is now closed and the decision is published.

For the Arbitration Committee. --14:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Hi Robert, sorry to impede on your time but I have a problem! Since editing on Cuba and Cuban related articles I have witnessed what can only be described as a maelstrom of incivility and edit warring centring around the edits of Adam Carr, to such a degree that it has made international news (see article here ). Users (including mediators and myself) have attempted to address the situation via the normal dispute processes here and here but they have been rejected. A selected but by no means comprehensive catalogue of behaviour can be found here. Adam will be away from wikipedia for two weeks, but has announced on his user page that “Normal revert wars will be resumed on my return”. There’s all sorts of layered issues involving many users and administrators related to this dispute, and several users have been blocked for large periods. But the central issues of page content have not been resolved. I am not alone in believing that arbitration may need to be considered in this case, but I’d like an experienced Wikipedian to offer a third opinion on whether the process would benefit the page. Would you care to comment? Thanks. --Zleitzen 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting an advocate
Hi Robert I noticed that you are listed as member of the AMA who is accepting inquires at the moment. I wonder if you could take a look at a biography for a living person and settle a dispute between users.

The article in question is about Judd Winick a cartoonist who is known for his work on super hero comics and Gay and Lesbian themes. There is a minor reversion war in progress and I've not been able to resolve it myself. Given the topic there is a fair bit of homophobia and critism on one side and fanboy praising and slanted POV writing on the other.

I have tried to resolve this by paring down the previous article to bare facts and personal history but this hasn't been accepted. Would you mind taking a look a this?

If you do arbitrate this you'll need to talk to the user [| nightscream] to get his side of the story.

Thanks for your time.

Marcus wall 00:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Firstly I wan't to clarify that I'm an idiot that has reacted stupidly to harrasment. My personal stalker has received several insults from me everysingle one as a direct result of his harassment. He mostly erases whatever I write and reverts whatever I do. It resulted in an arbitration. We both gain parole, but he isn't stopping his harassment. I started a not talking to him policy and today I began a not talkin about him (to regular users or in talk pages). He, User:Dyslexic Agnostic, has admited monitoring me, not knowing the topic of some pages I edit, insulted me, moved my user page while I've only (stupidly) resource to PA (concep I learned slowly during the process). But I don't mind the ofenses and vandalism, it's the monitoring I can't take. The only symilar action I've done in the past (rewriting edits by other users I considered good but were erased by user DA, thanks to DA's contribs list) I stoped it after only 3 days of starting, because it made me feel no better than him (although, I think it was very faithful to the good work of the editors afected by DA). I'd like him to be either banned or block from reading my contribs. I don't mind punishment, I'd only like to stop him from editing wherever I go. Notice how he almost edits fight after me, he follows me to other users pages whe I complain about him (the only way to do that is by stalking). --T-man, the wise 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Run amuck deletions
Robert, I have some people deleting valid external links. I placed a link to http://CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org on the entries for Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and Adrenal Insufficiency. Someone removed it from the entry for Adrenal Insufficiency, even though CAH is the major cause of Adrenal Isufficiency and parents of children with CAH may go to that article to find more information. I run the site CongenitalAdrenalHyperplasia.org and it's against policy to enter a link to your own site, but given that there wasn't even a link to it in the Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia entry, the policy has obviously, drastically, failed to provide for adequate links. In all honesty Wikipedia's reputation for a giant trash bin has scared people away, so the few who do participate can't hope to provide all the pertinent links if that policy were enforced. (which it very obviously isn't unless it's "convenient")

The same people also deleted a link to http://america.needsyourprayers.com in the entry for Prayer because it was only about America, and this, supposedly violates the neutrality policy in some way that the link to Bahai prayers (which include only prayers for Bahai) doesn't.

I find such blatant bias and ignorance astounding. Is there some way you can handle this? Dannycarlton 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy
Are you available? There is a problem in need of an advocate. --Elonka 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy
Are you available? There is a problem in need of an advocate. -- Bcsurvivor 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aid for your pupil
Here I gather some references to bane or at leas stop DA from harassing me.


 * "User:Dyslexic agnostic appears unable to assume good faith with regards User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, and appears to have formed himself into a one man T-Man correction squad, note [51]. I'm also concerned by the comments expressed in this diff, [52], which indicate some level of keeping an eye on T-Man. User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow seems incapable of keeping his temper with regards Dyslexic agnostic".   -Steve Block ( Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence ).


 * Simply put; they show signs of being able to work usefully, but need to be kept apart. Mozzerati 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -Mozzerati Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence


 * He has come to believe that T-Man's contributions are without merit, and has not been shy in saying so. Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence

Previous cases:


 * ''In the matter of Cool Cat (talk • contribs) (aka User:Coolcat) — a case decided on October 5, 2005 — the ArbCom voted that wikistalking was unacceptable in the following circumstances: It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users...Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)'. The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.


 * In the matter of Skyring — a separate case decided August 12, 2005 — a user was found by the Arbitration Committee to have committed "wikistalking". The committee voted 5-0 that:

"The term 'wiki-stalking' has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors."

"On 13 June User:Skyring followed User:Jtdirl, editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by Jtdirl (see contributions for 13 June). While it is not possible to fully assess intent, this action, and some of the edit summaries used, seem designed to provoke: 'enfeebled minds', 'Some professional standards, please!', 'A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English', 'Low quality of Irish editor'" --T-man, the wise 06:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call
There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign next to your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) However, seeing your message on your main talk page, it looks like you may be out for a bit. אמר Steve Caruso</b> <b style="color:#000000;">( desk / poll )</b> 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your AMA statement was deleted
Your AMA statement was deleted apparently carelessly from the AMA statements page (see this edit)if your statement needs to be restored, the text is at User:Pedant/AMA error Pedant 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

T-Man out of control
Your "mentee" T-Man, on top of his usual antics, is now accusing me of having a sock puppet, at Requests for checkuser/Case/Dyslexic agnostic. He continues to place personal attacks against me, at User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Vandalism & Harassment, a page I have asked to have deleted repeatedly. And his spelling is atrocious... one of many examples is "Image:Fire From Olimpus.jpg"... I mean, the correct spelling is in from of his nose, on the image itself! Please rein him in. -- Dyslexic agnostic 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To add to the above, T-Man has been acting inappropriately at Talk:List of Justice League episodes, a page he was previously banned from. I am advising his mentors rather than engage him directly, to avoid further agression and hostile responses. -- Dyslexic agnostic 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)