User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 301-400

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RfAr Jim62sch
Sam,

I'd submit that the underlying issue is not phrased precisely - from what I have seen, the pertinent question is whether the warning of a legal obligation to report is considered a threat - rather than whether that understanding of a legal obligation is accurate.

The committee is not able to decide on the nature of the obligation, but they should certainly be able to determine if conduct policy as it is written prohibits warnings and notices of a legal obligation to report observed activity. there are far more professions with reporting obligations defined by law than the United States military. Avruch talk 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've actually handled the issue of whether what was done in this case was a 'friendly reminder' or a threat, and how to approach it. There are other occasion where people have a positive duty to notify the authorities if they reasonably suspect rule-breaking, but most are very specific. Given the fact that US military personnel are a significant part of the wikipedia community, I think that the way this issue was discussed may have misled some users and allowed malicious users a potential way of intimidating opponents. I hope I am wrong about that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you are wrong as well. There needs to be a balance between allowing editors to inform other editors of pertinent legal vulnerabilities and obligations and restricting harassing behavior. In this case, I don't think a finding has been made that Jim62sch's behavior was harassing and so what was it? Merely impolite? What, then, is the status of what he actually said if it was neither harassing nor a legal threat? Avruch talk 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see finding of fact 1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I took the "as a minimum" segment to be weakening the conclusion of harassing activity to the point where it appeared as though a statement "Jim's conduct was harassing" would not be supported by itself. Either way, this case is on the edge of being closed so I suppose further debate has no purpose. Avruch talk 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The meaning is "it was intended as harassing, which is unacceptable, but even if that hadn't been the intent, it would have been likely to be perceived as harassing, which also is unacceptable." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde case
I think in one of your votes you missed a tilde. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a 'five tilde' anonymous sign I did by accident ;-) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins
Hi Sam. With regard to your comment here about uninvolved admins on Israel/Palestine articles, my experience is that such an approach would be difficult. Once an uninvolved admin steps in, they are quickly assigned as either "anti-Israel" or "anti-Palestine", based on which particular misbehaving users their attention focuses on first. Thence follows vitriol, and by virtue of answering charges of bias or defending oneself against charges of anti-Semitism or anti-Arabism, the admin is no longer uninvolved. It happens to many admins who set foot more than cursorily on this topic. Again, my perspective may be skewed (or informed) by my own experience, but I thought I'd offer it. MastCell Talk 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is something which is likely to be considered during the arbitration, because almost everyone has an opinion on Israel/Palestine and certainly everyone can be pigeonholed as having an opinion. If you can think of a way to break the deadlock and give extra guarantees of fair enforcement, the arbitrators would be very pleased to hear it. I certainly have experience of being accused of being a Macedonian partisan (or was it Greek, I never can remember) when I turned down an unblock appeal from a nationalist editwarrior, so "I feel your pain". Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew you were anti-Macedonian. It all makes sense now. No, I don't have an actual solution - just a complaint, as usual. :) I'll think about it, though. Personally, I think that on articles this contentious, we need to be a bit more promiscuous and indiscriminate with topic bans, blocks or other sanctions. Editors who try to stay cool and content-focused see their approach going unrewarded, while recidivist edit-warriors, WP:POINT-makers, and flame-fanners go about unmolested on their 11th chance at reform. The balance of positive and negative reinforcement is way off. Honestly, if a few hard-core WP:BATTLErs need to take a 6-month topic break and go improve other areas of the encyclopedia, it's not the end of the world. But I'll stop trying to influence you with my cynicism. Good luck with the case. MastCell Talk 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand
Gene Poole has now written that Sealand simultaneously considers itself a micronation and a microstate - though I stated more than once on the discussion page that this is definitely not true. When I removed the information, he called it vandalism. He says that if I change it again I will be reported - what would be the best solution to this? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have "stated more than once" is totally and utterly irrelevant. You are not a reliable source as defined by WP:SOURCE, and your personal opinions are not citable in WP. The "best solution" is for you to refrain from vandalising the article again by blanking content which properly cites the official Sealand news source. End of story. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gene, you're not helping yourself, you know. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Blanking content which cites sources that comply with WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE constitutes vandalism. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate has blanked the same cited content on 2 separate occasions now. As far as I'm aware WP's vandalism policy has not changed recently - and this is a clearcut instance of vandalism.


 * You may also wish to review your comments here and elsewhere on this subject, as you seem to be confusing me with Onecanadasquarebishopsgate.


 * Firstly, I have made no accusations of trolling. Accusations of trolling were made about me by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate in the context of a Wikiquette alert posted by the above editor about me, which was found to be groundless.


 * Secondly, I have made no "inappropriate edits" to Principality of Sealand or any other article. The fact that not even one diff has been produced by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate to show any such "inappropriate edits" should be a good indication to you that there are none.


 * The real problem here is Onecanadasquarebishopsgate. He is effectively a single-purpose account that was created several months ago. He has been attempting to relentlessly push a fringe POV into Principality of Sealand and a number of related articles ever since - as both Warlordjohncarter and DrKiernan have already pointed out.


 * Despite literally dozens of requests he has failed to produce any citable sources supporting his position. Not a single other editor supports his position, and numerous other editors oppose it - and yet he is continuing to push it relentlessly, against consensus, and without references, claiming that it constitutes WP:NPOV.


 * As an Admin and Arbitrator you should take particular care to base your statements and observations on hard evidence, rather than on mere suppositions and unsubstantiated accusations. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pygmy Guru
I guess my point was, instead of just deleting the Pygmy Guru in such a lazy fashion, I would have expected you to at least try to better the article. Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia? To expand, as a community, each article to provide information for the masses?

It is not your job to police Wikipedia. You technically have no job here. But if you want to better the readers' experience, maybe better the article so that it follows the website's guidelines?

I don't know. I never really thought laziness was an admirable trait of a moderator. Please reconsider.

- Your absolute biggest fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwillbill (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, in advance
Hi,

This really is terrible of me, but I feel compelled to point out that "obiter dicta" is the plural of "obiter dictum" (in reference to your remarks while rejecting the Rollback ArbCom case.) I hate doing things like this, but my mom taught English and Latin for many years, so a certain level of obnoxiousness is in my blood!

I'll take this opportunity also to point out to you my remarks at the IRC Proposed decision talk page, under the heading "ArbCom Mailing List" regarding David Gerard. I understand you may not wish to offer comment on my question as deliberations continue, but I wanted to point the remarks out to an Arbitrator, just to make sure they didn't "fall through the cracks." I'm guessing that -- since you probably want to beat me right now for being a word-jerk -- this is as good a time as any! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message
Hello, Sam Blacketer! In response to your message regarding New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008, I just wanted to apologize for that edit I made to the results table. I realize that I should have looked more carefully at the information provided.

Would it be possible to write an explanation of the Republican results in the Democratic primary in the article? Your explanation seems to make sense, but a statement verified by a member of the New Hampshire government would be appreciated. That way, the confusion would be minimized.--Dem393 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition
I did request a RFC for the above mentioned article as you suggested in your decision to deny my request for formal mediation.

Swatjester has posted his opinion on the RFC, the Third Opinion and the RSN. I thought these and all other avenues were to invite neutral third parties not interested in the dispute to post their opinion and the interested should remain uninvolved. I mean the talk page has our failed attemtp at resolution if anyone wanted to see our POV. His opinion and mind shouldn't count and that's why on the the RFC I posted a neutral statement to start the discussion, not my opinion. Should we involve ourselves in the other resolution tools?--Ccson (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply and suggestion, I will take them, however; my question is that no matter what the dispute, shouldn't the interested parties remain neutral and not post their own opinion where we're asking others for their assistance. Swatjester is the first and only comment on the RFC and that may somehow prejudice other editors who come after him.  My comment gave no history or my opinion, I simply posed a question.  thanks.--Ccson (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone's opinion should count. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A RFC is open for everyone to comment, not just those who you approve. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestine/Israel arbitration case
You write "I can either prove, or provide conclusive circumstantial evidence, that User:Jaakobou has been operating one or more sock-puppets in order to edit-war. He has had 4 days to tell us how many there are, and name them."

If you have reasonable good faith grounds for believing Jaakobou has been misusing multiple accounts then please send it to the arbitration committee mailing list (where it will be treated confidentially), at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Setting a deadline for Jaakobou to reveal them is not relevant, because that might be taken to imply that such use was acceptable if subsequently declared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll not share this information with anyone. I know what happened in the Isarig case - the known sock-puppets accounts were deleted, depriving everyone of the opportunity to check the evidence and repair the damage to articles. But the sock-master was not forced to declare his (apparently admitted) other socks! It was an absurd situation then, it's an absurd situation now. Jaakobou must confess all his abusive sock-puppet activities before any progress can possibly be made with this case.
 * My statement is full of evidence of Jaakobou's breath-taking record of abusive activities - except as regards what he has done behind our back. I've caught him out in secret activities - but only some of them - and it's essential he come clean.
 * However, I cannot see Jaakobou confessing on this one, he's a protected species against whom no sanctions will ever be imposed. Two well-regarded members of the ArbCom told us he's untouchable (see diffs collected here).
 * In fact, it's long been obvious that Jaakobou is untouchable, as my damning statement makes plain. It seems like madness that any editor raise an ANI on him in the first place, knowing what happened to the instigator of the Isarig case - just days later he was driven off the project by (amongst other things) exceedingly dubious accusations of sock-puppetry, from which he was not permitted to defend himself. Astonishingly, I was reprimanded for drawing people's attention to the uncovering of these sock-puppets - clearly, some people wanted the bad edits to stick!
 * It was a master-stroke to turn this ArbCom into a morass, listing (and intimidating) more and more editors in this area - while preventing (by threat of a 1 month block) the same editors from including User:Jayjg, as so many wanted to do.
 * It was a master-stroke to allow Jaakobou to be mentored by the WP sock-puppet specialist - after all, if 007 refuses to apply his/her world-famous trip-wire detection skills to his situation, the matter is settled. Jaakobou will not called to account.
 * Until now, tendentious defenders of Israel (urgently recruited and likely rewarded eg here) have felt somewhat inhibited against sock-puppeting. I'm sure they will be pleased to be given the green-light to cheat freely from now on. PRtalk 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiliberalism
Yes, you're right. It's far too personal. I'll move it to my sandbox for now. Once all of the I's and so on are removed, I'll put it back. Zenwhat (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

European Parliament constituencies
Sam, hi! I'm trying to sort out the European Parliament constituencies (the aim is to furnish each one from every EU country with at least a stub containing a map, infobox, sources, navbox and brief description). I've completed the 2004-2009 term and 1999-2004 term, (although there is some debate about the names of the Polish constituencies, with contradictory sources), so my attention is now on the 1994-1999 term. During this period, the UK used a plurality voting system with one MEP per constituency, with the result that there were (approx) 80 UK constituencies between 1979 and 1999. So finding sources for them is going to be a whole new world of fun. A brief google search for one of them threw up your subarticle, User:Sam Blacketer/EP constituencies, which - yay! - lists them all. This will help me immensely in my search for sources. With that in mind, can I ask you not to delete that list for a few months whilst i work thru it? Failing that, would you mind if I copied it to one of my sandboxes? Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
 Dear Sam Blacketer, my sincere thanks for your (very kind) support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator,  Rlevse  and  Ryan Postlethwaite  who in addition to  Ioeth  all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki,  Dihyrdogen Monoxide  and  OhanaUnited  who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community  really does have something  other places  don't. Who would have though  Gmail  would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget  .  16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluemarine ArbCom case
Thank you for your note, requesting my inclusion on this case. I've added my own comments to that section. I trust that ArbCom would do due diligence in verifying any allegation Sanchez might make about me. I'm sure you are well-aware that there have been a full array of unsubstatiated allegations made by him already. And as you can see, from my Talk page, I was invited into this ArbCom after I'd been out of the Sanchez wars for many months. Very surprised to see it had once more degenerated from the consensus view we'd had before. Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Explosions
Thanks for your message I have replied here. Giano (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will help the Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee

I am willing to join the working group. I am not an admin so I don't qualify for the Committee. My qualifications are:

1. I am a nice and fair person.

2. I have not edited the articles in dispute.

3. I want to better WP and I am willing to help.

4. I have been called "polite" during a potential conflict which never turned into conflict. (AFD related).

This isn't being power hungry because the working group has no power. It's there to help solve a big problem.Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance
Is Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About WP:FRINGE
About your comments here

Do you think WP:FRINGE should be eliminated?

I'm not accusing you here, just wondering. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A question about article bans imposed by admins.
I have not seen such a ban on any of the Homeopathy related article but I am wondering if such bans are review-able by arbcom upon demand by the blocked user(s) ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Email
Just letting you know I fired you off an email about a minute ago :) Nothing terribly urgent, though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Just a question. A recent request for arbitration concerning Elvis Presley has been rejected by the arbitrators. See. Now my opponents who unsuccessfully requested the case are joining forces in order to promote their preferred version of the article. Interestingly, my old opponent Lochdale who has been banned from editing Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision, is among them using the IP 130.208... See this discussion. Rikstar says, "If more people agree than disagree with this change, then the edit should go ahead. The minority who disagree will have to accept it." See. Is it really in line with Wikipedia policy that some Elvis fans can determine the content of the article if they are in the majority? Another user, Egghead06, said that there "appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to achieve some internal star or pat-on-the back." See. Administrator and Elvis fan LaraLove replied that this sentence by Egghead06 "is an ignorant one." See. I would like to hear some unbiased third-party statements. Arbitrator FT2 also suggested that outside views would be helpful (possibly backed by uninvolved adminstrators). Do you have an idea how to handle this matter? Onefortyone (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I need help, please - The House of Wisdom
Hi Mr Blacketer, I'm Mussav, we spoke once, I need you to help me on this, there is a member called User:07fan‎ and he is keep removing the content/ sourced info. and he is causing Edit war, the conflict in The House of Wisdom page. could you help me please by talking to him or to tell me how I can talk to Moderators. many thanks. Mussav (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page while I look into it. Please note there are no 'moderators' as such on Wikipedia. I'm disturbed by the fact that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been edited since 2006 despite the recent dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, First of all Thank you for looking into it, 2ndly I thought there were Moderators and administrators, any way thank you for the info, finally I'm really sorry for not using the Discussion page, at first I thought it was unnecessary since I'm using official sourced info and to be honest I tried to not cross the lines, but the other user didn't help. Mussav (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Sam Blacketer, User:Mussav is misinterpreting sources, the sources do not support his assertions, there was no state of Iraq at that junction of history, the state was called Abbasid at time, Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century. Saying "Abbasid-era Iraq" is like saying "Ottoman-era Turkey", it's both self-contradictory and wrong. Also, Ctesiphon is not Al-Mada'in, this is another false assertion by User:Mussav, Al-Mada'in was not built until centuries after Ctesiphon was demolished, these are two different cities. User:Mussav's use of references that do not directly support and even contradict the text that they should support, appears to be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. --07fan (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century? I'm sorry Mr. Sam Blacketer, but I want to correct his info, the Land between the 2 Rivers always called Iraq by Arab, Arab lived in Mesopotamia long time ago, even during the rule of Persia, Al-Manathera Al-Lakhmiyoon lived in Iraq, in Hira in that time and that was before Islam, so since that time it called Iraq, and beside, the name of Mesopotamia came from Greek (Meaning the land between the 2 rivers), while the original people of Mesopotamia "Sumerian" called it Oruk (Iraq), so Iraq dose exist since the Dawn of History, also to prove him wrong, in the 11th Century people called this modern day Iraq by Iraqi Arab, while the Western part of Iran was called Persian Iraq, you can find this info here in Persian Iraq page, this article created by Persians, so I have no Idea what 07fan is talking about. about the Ctesiphon that was an Incest City located in Modern day Iraq, this City now rebuilt and became Al-Mada'in, the ruins of Ctesiphon is still there, what is so hard to understand? It's the same location, people will ask where is Ctesiphon? Vanished? It's not the correct answer, the ruins is still there and Taq-i Kisra is still there and the city now called Al-Mada'in, and this is fact. here this is the link that prove Iraq existed in the Abbasid era, one of the numerous lines that mentioned Iraq, "Once again Iraq was the central province of the caliphate and Baghdad the capital" in another line "from the beginning the 'Abbasid caliphs made Iraq their base" . sorry Sam for bothering you, I just wanted to correct his info. Mussav (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century, it was a region, not a state. Also, you're misinterpreting sources, Ctesiphon did not "become" Al-Mada'in, Al-Mada'in was a new city built in close proximity of what was once Ctesiphon, that's very different from your false claim that "Ctesiphon became Al-Mada'in". --07fan (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't twist the words, state or region, I said the land between the 2 rivers is called Iraq, And this is fact, read what I've said above, I won't repeat my words all over again, that's what I'm trying to tell you but you are so stubborn, about Ctesiphon and Al-Mada'in, I already showed you in many times that I'm talking about the land of the previous Ctesiphon, was, and now what it became. now it became Al-Mada'in, and this is fact if you like it or not. . Mussav (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why are you linking Iraq to Iraq (the modern state), and what is the point of saying ""Abbasid-era Iraq" when the geography is already established by the correct description "Abbasid-era Baghdad"? As for Ctesiphon, the city no longer exists, Al-Mada'in did not "become Ctesiphon", the ruins of Ctesiphon are still there, even the source you`re using says "Arabs settled in a new city near Ctesiphon ". Your misinterpretation of facts and sources, is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.  --07fan (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Iraq means everything, Iraq the state, Iraq the region, Iraq the Abbasid Dynasty, Ancient Mesopotamia, the Persian province...etc you can click on Iraq and know everything about Iraq's history. About Ctesiphon, I told you and I'm really tired of your stubbornness, just click on the links I added above. The source even says it only renamed. "In 637 it was taken and plundered by the Arabs who renamed it, along with Seleucia, al Madain . and in the other link, it says " (the Arabs started to call the place Al-Madain, "the cities")" and this prove that it was the same city. Mussav (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * what is settling has to do with the naming? Don't tell me I have to settle in the same city to call it by my language? any way the link is about Ctesiphon's History, and by saying Arab started to call it Al-Mada'in, they mean Ctesiphon. Mussav (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq does not "means everything", the Iraq page on Wikpedia is about Iraq the modern country. As for your claim that "Ctesiphon became Al-Madain" please study No_original_research: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, then the editor is engaged in original research." That is exactly what you`re doing here, synthesizing sources when they do not support your assertions. --07fan (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it dose, I advise you to take a visit on Iraq's page, 2ndly you need to read clearly what I've said, the location is the same, the land is the same, the ruins is still exist there in AL-MADAIN, it doesn't matter if it built later or not, although even the sources said it only renamed, not only the sources, go and visit wikpedia pages, Ctesiphon, Al-Mada'in and Taq-i Kisra, The point is it doesn't matter if it bulit later, All what I have done is adding (now Al-Madain) next to Ctesiphon, and it is a FACT, I have no Idea why you are making it so complicated?, any way all what I've said was on the Discussion page, unfortunately it was in Sam's not the House of Wisdom's Discussion page, Sam I really aphorize of what is happening here. As for you 07fan, talking with you is futile, I'm wasting my time, I will let it to the administrators. Mussav (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Mussav, just because you say it is a fact does not make it so. Your total disregard for Wikipedia policies such as No_original_research, WP:RS, and Consensus, is disturbing, to say the least.--07fan (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who is saying this is fact, so now, All the pages are false? the Ctesiphon, Al-Mada'in and Taq-i Kisra are false? the sources I brought are false? To be honest, I started to think if I brought to you another 10 sources all of them will be false. Btw, when you crossed the line and removed/deleted the sources, did you get a Consensus? Mussav (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I already explained in detail that you`re synthesizing, and your references do not directly support your assertions. Not only you`re disregarding editorial policies, you`re also engaging in personal attacks by calling me "blind and making other personal comments. And you`re the one who introduced the inaccuracies and controversial changes to House of Wisdom, you should sought consensus on the discussion page before doing so. --07fan (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No I'm not synthesizing things, tell me why it's hard to understand the Ctesiphon-Al-Mada'in thing? and please don't tell me I'm wrong in the things I mentioned above. About Iraq I gave you sources that Iraq dose exist in the Abassid era, one of the numerous lines that mentioned Iraq "Once again Iraq was the central province of the caliphate and Baghdad the capital" in another line "from the beginning the 'Abbasid caliphs made Iraq their base" . and I also gave you Ctesiphon-Madain sources. But you insist to be stubborn. Mussav (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About attacking you personally? If calling you blind means attacking you then I apologize for crossing the line, thought any Blind person can know/understand what I'm saying. Mussav (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2
Hi. I think you missed voting on the enforcement paragraph, and I added an alternative proposal to one you abstained on that you might want to take a look at. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements.

TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The initial draft seemed to me to be too harsh on TTN who is, I think, editing in good faith in a way he believes is helping the encyclopaedia. I was weighing up whether to propose an alternate remedy along the lines of requiring him to obtain consensus in discussion before acting, but I came to the conclusion that it would not be practical. The suggestion that TTN only be restricted when others challenge him is likewise difficult to enforce and runs the risk of heightening edit-warring, as those on the other side will take it as a green light to follow TTN around objecting to his moves regardless of the situation.


 * We have had communication from TTN about the case and I have formed my judgment in the light of it. This is one factor which led me to propose, it looks like successfully, to limit his restrictions to six months; I am hopeful and confident that there will be no reason to renew them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While it's possible that someone might just follow him around and challenge him on everything he does, so be it. Say something that prevents people from taking it further and reverting back to TTN's version. Make it apply for everyone, that when the challenge is made in relation to TTN's action it has to be discussed or something. It's far from ideal, and is hardly fair, but is still better than a total ban of his actions. We need to see TTN make an action, have it challenged, and then show him how it should be handled. Otherwise no one will learn anything from this. This also treats every thing he's done as wrong, and I'm certain that editors who strongly disagree with him will take this as a ruling that means just that.


 * Please, let us try the if challenged proposal, even if only for a week or two, then default to the one you are currently proposing. We have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by trying that proposal first. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Superman music
I'm done with that page anyway. The spammers have won. Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for information
Hi, Sam Blacketer! I'm trying to understand ArbCom a little bit, and would like some advice. I'm an admin that's been involved in .. discussions .. at Talk:Matt Sanchez. As you know, the article is on probation. In my mind, the information at WP:SANCTIONS is a bit vague. For instance, discussions on the Sanchez article often get to the point where it seems like one editor is disagreeing with a second just because of who the suggester is, with no regard to the suggestion itself. "A" says 'lets use this picture', "B" replies 'no' simply because it's A suggesting.

When does it become a matter of "disruptive edits"? When do you say "Hey - you're just being stubborn to make a point"? Can edits to the talk page be considered "disruptive"?

And if, for some reason we discuss here, it's determined that a particular user is "disruptive", am I, as an involved editor/administrator, allowed to be the one to block? Or should I request a third-party admin?

A whole lot of questions, I know. I'm sorry. I just feel like editors are being stubborn and blocking actual progress that could be made on an article that sorely needs it. And I don't want to be accused of "abusing" admin tools. Though it does seem that the article can't make any progress unless someone is drastic. &lt;sigh&gt; -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well?
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi, what about this article redirect to a user page? WP:LOTD Gary King (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Sam, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on OTRS. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note by someone who wants to vandalise David Cameron
ha ha i love the way you sit like a dog at davids camerons page in order to revert any impending edits about him, god you conservitive, connies is more apt as it is all a con with you horrible lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.195.202 (talk • contribs)

Franco-Mongol Alliance RfAr
You didn't vote on the Enforcement provision ... was that an inadvertent omission, or is there an issue there we should discuss? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG
Hi Sam. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle
I have filed a case per your request. You said this would only be an arbitration issue if it results in divisive administrative action.

While I find it strange that arbcom is more than qualified in identifying sockpuppets, I'll "humor" the processes a little bit more. This is adding to my frustration so I would like to know what kind of a case would arbcom be willing to see assuming the divisive administrative action happens.

-- Cat chi? 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think you (arbcom) can delay the RfAr request until SSP concludes? Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle for example concluded and it is only a matter of time for SSP to conclude one way or another. -- Cat chi? 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Resources on past MPs
Hi Sam, I was about to invite you to defend your wishful-thinking football analogy and ill-considered comparisons with conscientious church members in defence of the utterly unconscionable Prem Rawat employee and POV pushing revisionist Jossi Fresco over on Arbcom. But I noticed you have some interest in past British MPs which is far less a depressing subject to contemplate first thing Saturday morning :-)  For family reasons I am trying to find information about my grandfather Frank Clarke who was a popular MP for Erith in the 1930's,  an active scout leader, on good terms with the king (George V?) and instrumental in the building of the Dartford Tunnel. Any ideas where I might begin?PatW (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to thank you for your helpful reply. I couldn't reply sooner as Thebainer blocked me. I am most grateful for your drawing my attention to those avenues, which I will explore in due course.
 * I must confess that, on the other matter, I have become profoundly disillusioned with Wikipedia. Possibly for the first time in my 51 years I feel I have been involved in a really offensive, unethical and quite sinister process of injustice. I feel like I need to wash my hands (literally) of this place. That Arbcom was a hopeless sham. To observe how you can all so easily favour and accommodate people like Jossi Fresco, who in my experience is pushing his POV in a most fanatical and aggressive way (and that is an understatement!), is too much to bear. From now on I shall turn my attention (if I have time) to discussing Wikipedia's inadequacies in the real world. I'm just sorry that you have been so royally duped since you seem like you are basically trying to exercise justice. I feel that the most friendly advise I can offer you in return for your kindness, is to recommend that you take a long, hard look at what Jossi Fresco is up to before you rush to judgement - because frankly he has made fools of all of you.PatW (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration Request
I read your judgement in the arbitration request, and while I respectfully agree with the points you have raised, I am disappointed the case is unlikely to proceed. I just wanted to clarify - if the case proceeded, there'd be no guarantee that the editor was unblocked, right? It may so happen that a tighter remedy is applied? I was under this impression when I made the opinion that the case should proceed. If I'm wrong, then I'd change my opinion accordingly. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean IanTresman? The only existing Arbitration committee sanction against him personally is a probation for one year which was passed in December 2006 and suspended when he was indefinitely blocked. He remains blocked but he is no longer 'community banned' because there are admins who are willing to unblock him and give him a chance. As this has not happened yet I had to consider the matter on the basis of what we have now. You're right that should the case be accepted, it's not necessarily the case that IanTresman would end up less restricted than he is now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification
Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

how
how did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.10.90 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people say it started with a bang, others think there was somebody responsible. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heretic! It wasn't just "somebody"; it was all the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It would appear that you have not been touched by His Noodly Appendage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Giano Civility paroles
Sam, thank you for writing about your perspective as an arbitrator; it gives me some insight into the situation in which you find yourself. I have responded on Giano's talk page, but I wanted to especially emphasise to you that I don't see this as a Giano-specific issue; it just happens that Giano is the only editor under a civility parole who happens to be on my watchlist. Well, that was, until MONGO got hit last week. But I see the same repeated cycle of mutual overreaction and escalation repeating over and over in these "civility" cases, and what we are doing is just not working, for anyone. I can sense the frustration in your post, and I believe you may be seeing some of the same things that I am. I'd rather work to solve these issues globally than just with respect to Giano, because I think we all need it, but I don't know how to do that as one voice being drowned out by all of this hyperbole and rhetoric on all sides. I am open to suggestion. Risker (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add my comment here rather than on Giano's talk page because Giano deletes any comments I leave there.
 * I think that Sam comes close to hitting the nail on the head when he says that "The problem, simply put, is that Giano often chooses to make his case in terms which are borderline incivil."
 * Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated than that. Giano's comments are frequently blatantly uncivil when they do not precisely identify a named editor as their target, with repeated remarks referring to "useless admins", the "stupidity of arbcom" etc. However, when he refers to individuals, he uses clever forms of words whose intent is clear, but which fall just short of personal attacks ... but when read together, it is frequently clear that his remarks are directed at specific targets. One of his tactics is to combine a borderline-civil comments with a disparaging edit summary, intended to goad.
 * On his own talk page, he deletes comments which are critical of his actions, so the conversations that appear there end up presenting an entirely misleading picture of the response to his actions
 * Some of Giano's criticisms have merit &mdash; i.e. they may or many not be right, but they have a point &mdash; but Giano's normal mode of behaviour is for his concerns to be raised in a way which disparages both the competence and good faith of other contributors, with deliberately imprecise allegations of grave misconduct by others. This is a deeply destructive form of conduct, because it succeeds in intent of poisoning and polarising the discussion, and creating an atmosphere in which there us little chance of reaching a consenus.
 * It's far too easy in a situation like this to get lost in debate over individual instances of misconduct, and to miss the wider pattern. That wider pattern appears to me to to be that Giano is a very skilled contributor who writes brilliant featured articles, but who also has clear contempt for the project as a whole: for its administrators, its arbcom, and for editors who don't write featured articles.
 * Many of us feel that there are things about wikipedia which are problematic, or flawed or even fundamentally broken, but we don't respond to that by trying to create wikidramas as Giano does. The only thing which allows an open community like this to function at all is a rigid adherence to assumption of good faith, and to respond in a civil fashion even when that good faith appears to be missing. Giano simply doesn't do that; when he raises a concern and doesn't get the answer he wants, he rapidly escalates to sneering, as in his sneer to Until(1 == 2).
 * The irony of that situation is that Giano had been complaining about FT2's removal of his talk page of Giano's query ... which is precisely what Giano does with any comments he dislikes in his own talk page.
 * In that episode, there were plenty of ways in which Giano could have responded to FT2's inadequate responses to Giano's concerns. I believe that the point Giano which raised deserved a reply on-wiki, but when he didn't get it he rapidly resorted to a personal attack. Giano could taken the matter to WP:AN, or discussed it at the page under discussion ... but instead, when he didn't get the response he wanted, he escalated the dispute by a personal attack on Until(1==2).
 * This sort of thing happens so often, that many editors who encounter Giano are very familiar with it. The result was entirely predictable: Giano got blocked for a breach of his civility patrol, and then there was yet another wikidrama as Giano claimed to be yet again the innocent victim of a with-hunt.
 * This was not a witch-hunt, nor was it setting someone up for failure. Giano knows perfectly well that editors are permitted to remove comments from their own talk pages (a mistaken policy, I believe, but that's how it is for now), and considering the frequency with which he does it on his own talk page, he had no grounds for complaint about another editor doing that. It was Giano's own choice to resort to a personal attack; nobody made him do it, nobody goaded him into it. He didn't have to edit war on
 * And now, once again, we have another Giano-complains-of-victimisation-fest, the latest of goodness-knows how many over the years. The question I see at this point is whether Giano wants to find a way or working with this community (including all its many flaws) without creating so much drama? I am not hopeful because I have yet to see any acknowledgement from Giano, anywhere on wikipedia, that the dramas which surround him are so often like this one: a legitimate concern about the actions of others which is, however, pursued in manner which escalates because of his own actions, and in which he never apologises. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BHG, does it ever occur to you that I am involved in other things too, of which you have no knowledge. We are all very small cogs in a very big machine. Secondly you revert me too on your talk, so don't be so sanctimonious please, and on this occasion I am permitting yu to remain on my page. Giano (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, it is very rare for anything to be removed from my talk page other than to the archive (the only other exception I can recall is Ryoung122's copy-pastes of tens of screenfuls of text from other talk pages). However, I have recently begun to make an exception for you, after long experience of that my comments on your talk are routinely reverted, most recently in response to your insinuations that I had somehow been a party to some sockpuppetry attacks on you, because I am sick of you censoring replies to your trolling. If you will agree to entirely stop removing my comments from your talk page, then I will be delighted not to have you as the one exception to my don't-censor-my-talk policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your note on my talk page, Sam - it was much appreciated! I've replied in a few paragraphs there (not too long, I promise!) - and if you are at all amenable I'd love to catch up in a 'real time' forum, at any time convenient for you! drop me a line any time if you can find a moment... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi from Janie Porche
Hi,

I see that you deleted my page, somehow rendering me as "lacking significance".

Can you either (a) help me to reverse this problem, or (b) help me add significance to my life - enough that would re-qualify me for my wiki page? Perhaps I need to volunteer with misguided youths?

Thank you kindly,

Janie Porche Janieporche (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Mfd Facsimile of your userpage
Hi just to let you know that I have raised Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unknown283 which appears to be an almost exact copy of your userpage. -- EhsanQ (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. It's very strange. Although I have seen it defended before as "he likes your picture" (just let him cut the alt "this is me"). Barnstars and Userboxes are only relevant to the users they relate to - I'm sure in the UK, you could at least expect a court summons for misappropriating somebody elses barnstars. If he like's your cat he should still be able to keep that as long as he doesn't alt it as "This is me" without a  . -- EhsanQ (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice please
Hi, in my topic ban case I've felt quite frustrated from the very beginning. I was never warned and have acted, generally, with patience with the entire proceedings. Now, per this, my appeal has been vectored away and I'm still left with few, if any, answers. I was told to appeal to Arbcom and they were the only ones could could overturn an admin and now am being told that Arbcom appeal isn't needed and that admins can reverse the ban. Where can I turn please? Any help appreciated. Banje boi 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello? If I'm not suppose to go to Arbcom where do I seek to get this overturned? Banje boi  02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman misunderstood
I too would be suspicious of an editor who used the summary "formating" when providing significant changes as you thought was going on here, as you assumed here  However, those changes that I made in both of those instances WAS formatting. Just minutes before doing THESE minor formating changes, I proposed a larger change, as evidenced here...and that is probably summarized, as "Several important meta-analyses published in RS and notable journals...please review before changing or deleting" This is a perfectly accurate summary, but I screwed up the formating of the references and therefore had to correct them twice. These two edits WERE formating issues to the complex new review of meta-analyses that I provided just previously (in re-doing my edit, I had to delete an entire section of previous NEW information, and then provide correct formating of references. In THIS instance, I urge you to see the good faith efforts here, not anything else. I hope that you will clarify the charge that you have made here because my actions were legitimate and honest. If another editor "alerted" you to your previous assumption of bad faith of my part, I hope that you tell us who did this and that you will consider this editor as having an extreme POV and as evidence malicious behavior.  Thanx to user:FT2 for noting this confusion and to helping to correct it (confirming my good faith here). Humbly yours... DanaUllmanTalk 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanx for making that correction. Because this one misunderstanding may have colored your assessment of the situation, I hope that you will re-look at the evidence and realize how many of the accusations against me are also misunderstandings and/or conflicts in content issues.  That said, I realize that the job of the Arb committee is extremely challenging.  I am simply saddened by the fact that the Arb committee seems averse to points of view that may be positive towards homeopathy and yet not realize that antagonism (even "livid" antagonism) to this subject is not POV-pushing (Shoemaker's Dream referred to homeopathy as "total bunk" in a recent wikipedia podcast...if you want the link, I can provide it).  DanaUllmanTalk 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb Com proposal
I am startled by the proposal for a sourcing arbitration board--please see my reply to Kiril on my talk page. I will be discussing it further of course somewhere in the arb com structure & probably elsewhere. Had you confined it to the immediate question presented by the Homeopathy articles, it would have had some justification. Please reconsider. DGG (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Just wondering if you'll be voting on Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision, as one of the arbitrators who accepted this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC) ✅


 * 3 arbitrators have expressed a desire to move finding 2.1 as a principle; the remainder (including yourself) haven't commented yet. Once this is resolved, and 1 more vote is cast in favour of it, the case should be ready to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Annual appeal
In your rejection of the request for clarification, you quote the additional restriction that was piled on top of the others in February: "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." This means that I get to make one appeal between the time that restriction was passed and its one year anniversary next February, correct? Everyking (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to talk to an arbitrator is like shouting into a void. You wait and wait, but no answer comes. I always imagine: "Well, maybe he's consulting with the others?" But eventually I figure out I'm just being ignored. And in this case, by someone I voted for! Can you understand how frustrating it is for the ArbCom to dismiss that request for clarification out of hand and then for you to ignore this very important question about my future options? Months of discussions and consideration went into that request for clarification, and you guys shot it down without a thought. I'm stuck in a well and not only will none of you throw me a rope, you throw rocks down at me when I try to climb out. If you can't tell me whether I am entitled to an appeal over the next nine months, can you point me to the sage who can answer my question? I suppose if I were to file another request for clarification, you guys could count that as my appeal, so I dare not. Everyking (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Morgan-Giles
Hi Sam, do you happen to know if the MP for Winchester 1964-1979 is still alive? I noticed Simon Heffer referred to him as the late Morgan Morgan-Giles in one of his articles but I can find no obituary online. Thanks. --Dovea (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Steward info
The Tony Blair article has had his stewardship (of the Chiltern Hundreds) for some considerable time. I see no harm in it. David (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of life.temp
I notice that you have blocked as a  sock puppet. Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't find any information regarding the basis for this block. There's an open sockpuppet report on this editor at Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, a somewhat related sockpuppet discussion at Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth, and further discussion of the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil and Talk:Barack Obama. Would you mind clarifying, or pointing us all, to information on which user this account is a sockpuppet of, how definite the conclusion is, etc. That could probably bear on the decision on how to deal with the Barack Obama article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that request. Noroton (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

RedSpruce
You had blocked RedSpruce for 3RR and he was later blocked for "edit warring" at Elizabeth Bentley. He is making the same changes again to articles that got him blocked last time. He has reversed multiple edits to these three articles back to his last version, overriding both consensus, and doing it during an active RFC: This is probably the fifth time in each article. No conditions were placed on him during his last block, so they continue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here at William Remington
 * Here at G. David Schine
 * Here at Elizabeth Bentley

A third party reverted his changes, and he re-reverted them once again. Do you have any thoughts on the issue? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OM/FT2/KL
leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I urge you to get active, to speak up, to give the community some guidance, to drive discussion on the list. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like, even the discussion of other cases... should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian
He has broken the unblocking condition of You do not make any edits concerning administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom, whether current or historical. - here  MRSC • Talk 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends if you consider England to be an administrative subdivision of the United Kingdom. Fair enough. MRSC • Talk 13:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the recent move war between Yorkshirian and User:Benkenobi18 on Roman Catholic Diocese of Leeds have any bearing on this situation? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Campbell Adamson
I came across Campbell Adamson in the Uncategorised people category. I'm really not sure how to categorize it, so I thought I'd ask you. It also looks like you sort of forgot to finish it. Thanks,  Psych  less   03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right, I just haven't had the time to finish it yet. Will get around to it but probably not until Wednesday evening. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

July Arb stuff
First, would like to ask if you could please vote in the motions at RfAr?

Another thing I'd like to remind you of is the 2 arb-clarifications - waiting on voting on discretionary sanctions remedy. 2 votes have been cast for the remedy as was decided in the homeopathy case. If you could vote on that sometime soon, that would be great as well. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now done so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Motions
Hi Sam, I saw you were online; would you be able to vote in the two motions at RfAr? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see I was beaten to the punch above :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano block wheel war RfArb
Hi Sam. I've added an addendum to my statement at that RfArb. Would you be able to confirm whether I'm talking about the same amendment that you are? Maybe you could link to it in your comment? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy ping
A few frustrated voices here. —Giggy 11:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. I think you really need to think long and hard about whether you've missed the mark there. Bygones be bygones for old events where the user has gone on to reform? Sure. But if there's a pattern of abuse that continues, please don't sweep it under the rug. You do the community a great disservice if you do that. ++Lar: t/c 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might like to know that your proposed motion still has the generic "Template" header. Probably not intentional. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you might want to explain this. What looks particularly disturbing is how this case was accepted when it seemed to be about Cla68 and is proposed to be dismissed when it's obvious that his "ongoing problematic behaviour" was not the central issue. Lacking a good faith explanation for this dismissal, bad faith explanations obviously abound ... Merzul (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, Merzul, you have not read, learned and inwardly digested our core policies and guidelines. I, on the other hand, have read most of them, learned many of them and am currently in the process of digesting all of them... inwardly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're happy
You've failed the community you should represent, utterly. Posting anonymously and through a proxy to avoid reprecussions. 77.105.27.92 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are labouring under two misapprehensions. First, the role of an arbitrator is not that of a representative. Restrictions do not pass because they are the expression of the wishes of the community. The wishes of the community might, but only might, be something to consider when framing findings. Second, there can be no possible repercussion of expressing your opinion, even strongly, about proposals in arbitration matters, so long as you are commenting about the opinions and not the person. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Update
Hello Sam Blacketer,

Regarding this, I'm concerned that User:Yorkshirian is breaking his terms of being allowed to edit by editting the Yorkshire article once again. I think it would be more than right of me too, to point out there is now a consensus to ban Yorkshrian for a period of 1 year per Requests_for_arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed_decision. Can you advise? --Jza84 | Talk  22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The case has now all the votes to close; when it does, which will be in a matter of hours, Yorkshirian will be banned for one year by one of the Arbitration Committee clerks. (It's being held open for other arbitrators, who have not yet voted, to participate) Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Although regrettable, I'm confident this is the right decision, going forwards. Thanks for your input on this case, I for one appreciate it. --Jza84 | Talk  01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Precipitating cause
"It is true to say Avruch's remarks seemed to start the whole thing off, " ummm, it doesnt take too long looking at the edits to see the action that realy set the whole thing off. And, no, it wasn't Durova. She would have had nothing to comment on had another editor not made such a gross blunder. Yet, nowhere in this case have the real preciptiating events been looked at. I hope they are being looked at somewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant
The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors". Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room". I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant" before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC).


 * I don't think Giano is the centre of the case, but to say he is uninvolved is stretching a point. I am concerned that this case should not be unduly extended as a pretext for trying to resolve "the Giano issue" once and for all. However, much though he may express his contempt for the committee and its procedures, Giano needs (informally) to bring his behaviour into line rather than keep making borderline uncivil remarks. I'm sure he realises that the administrative arguments over whether to block him for a borderline remark might bring the whole procedure into ridicule but ultimately it will not help. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sam. I'm sure you realize what a lot it would have helped if any of you Arbitration Sphinxes had posted a comment in this disgraceful flamefest on WP:AN—if some of you had chosen to address, you know, the behaviour of the usual Giano-bashers, rather than that of Giano (which rapidly became irrelevant to the party). May I ask: didn't any of you know about it? Didn't anybody post a link to your mailing list? Does any of you read WP:AN? I for my part had been discouraged from spamming the arbitrators any more just now, having had so little luck with the post I'd  tried (Charles Matthews' resentment at being addressed, the overall slowness, the general black-hole effect, etc.) I appreciate your response, Sam, it was the best of the lot and  looked like you'd actually read my post—but the fact is, if I had been talking about the WP:AN thread, that would have had time to play itself out several times over before any of you responded to me. I would hope some of you have other channels than me for what's going on, though.


 * Anyway. The fulcrum on which that AN slugfest teetered and played out was Kirill's Proposed Decision proposal to "remand" "Giano's continued public attacks" to the community as a whole. It's strange to me that the committee seems so imperfectly aware of, and so frankly unready to do anything about, the hair-trigger preparedness with which this keen group lies in wait for such opportunities to flame Giano; to dismiss his good faith with contumely; to mention his contributions only for the purpose of getting to say valuable witticisms like "Some pigs are more equal than others"; and to address him only by way of poking and prodding him to see if he can be gotten to say something blockable. Indeed, as Kirill put it in another part of the Proposed Decision, their preparedness to "engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.. in order to harass perceived adversaries". Bishonen | talk 12:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC).


 * To put it another way, rehabilitation is not just something that the rehabilitee does. The authorities also have a responsibility to protect people under arbitration sanctions from those seeking to take advantage of the sanctions to push an agenda or resolve a grudge. It is difficult to do it, but that part of the equation is needed as well. That is why context is so important when looking at behaviour. It would help if the arbitration committee unequivocally put out a statement making clear that established producers of good content should be respected, should not be harassed, and should not be blocked or banned without good cause (not special treatment, just taking as much care as you would with any other editor), and that individuals and the wider community should work with them to address concerns, rather than ignoring the issues or escalating disputes unnecessarily, or being overly sensitive to perceived problems. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Struggling to pretend that this isn't about Giano is a poor joke William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV case
You need to withdraw your motion to dismiss the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV|C68-FM-SV case. None of your colleagues have supported it. Moreover, by now, it should be abundantly clear that the parties' unacceptable behavior (which you termed "vexing but unsanctionable") is recent, ongoing and worsening. Read the evidence, and make a decision. Step up and do your job. Thank you, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I need do no such thing. Having offered a motion, it is now for other arbitrators to consider it; only one has yet done so and I will not make assumptions about any others. I should correct you that I did not refer to the entirety of the case as "vexing but unsanctionable", only most of it. Moving to dismiss a case which is not going anywhere, and is better dismissed, is "doing my job" when I honestly think that would be the best course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, I suppose. Next time, do what I say when I say it, rather than waiting a month.  You serve the community, of which I am by far the most prominent and respected member.  Please honor my magnificence in the future.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If by "not going anywhere" you mean your fellow committee members are refusing to act then yes, it's not going anywhere. This lack of progress can be remedied by actually voting.  If, on the other hand, you mean that that there are no pressing and substantive abuses of policy and trust that require your committee's intervention, the evidence--much of which (with the exception of the JzG stuff, which had no business being bundled into this case in the first place) is as fresh as a new days old--does not support this view.  But I suppose you're sticking to your claim that the evidence chiefly "concerns events long ago"--implying that the behaviors observed have improved or stopped altogether, when in reality they have worsened.  If you believe the talk pages of the case have degenerated into a mud-slinging circus, you are correct--but it's your own damned fault, and only you can put a stop it, and I don't mean by dismissing the very valid concerns of the community. Just do your job.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there was never going to be any real decision, why was this case accepted in the first place? I wish I understood some of the thinking behind this.  Hope you have a great evening (at least that's the time where I am).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sam, you're simply not entitled to be irrational here, even if you come by that irrationality honestly. So, no, moving to dismiss isn't doing your job, any more than an attempt by an honest doctor to remove a homunculus from the patient is doing the doctor's job. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The motion to dismiss the case, since withdrawn, was not irrational. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you thus admit that honesty isn't sufficient here? As to the ostensible rationality, the claim that the behavior was well in the past flew in the face of the evidence that had been presented.  An assumption of good faith allows for few other interpretations but irrationality. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why it's worth having a debate on a withdrawn proposal. For the record there was no "claim that the behaviour was well in the past". Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why you're debating, if you strongly doubt the merits of doing so. For the record, your claim was that “the majority of the evidence presented concerns events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable”.  Perhaps you will debate the equivalence of “long ago” and “well in the past”. *shrug* —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Hi Sam. Long time since we've interacted so hope you're doing well and arbcom isn't too much of a hassle! If you could just pop back to the above request when you have a free minute and state where you would prefer the case to take place, it would be much appreciated. Take it easy,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Sam.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July/August Arb stuff

 * Just to remind you (or inform you in case you're unaware) that in the Geogre-WMC case, except for principle 4.2, findings 4 and 5, and remedy 2.2, you've voted on everything proposed-to-date ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you  to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too. I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at : Alan Sun --Dralansun (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

Secretaries of State
You say: "I am sure you have become confused about the question of whether the title 'Secretary of State for Industry' should be capitalised. This is, or rather was, the official title of the post, and the Wikipedia approach is to follow usage elsewhere which is invariably to capitalise. You may wish to examine the obituaries for Eric Varley in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, and The Independent, all of which have either 'Industry Secretary' so capitalised or 'Secretary of State for Industry' so capitalised, or both." I am not confused, thank you. The style for the list is not to capitalise references to such positions unless used as part of a name e.g. King Juan Carlos, but the king of Spain. The usage of those newspapers is not relevant. Newspapers have different rules of style. We want uniformity for the particular article. You say further: "I cannot understand your comment about 'house style' not just because Wikipedia policy is invariably to use the same capitalisation as other sources, but also because the article titles actually in use and listed in Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom show the proper capitalisation is actually in use. Could you explain where you believe this has been discussed? " Wikipedia policy is not to use the same capitalisation. There is no uniform policy. The Washington Post uses a different style guide than the Daily Telegraph. It is to use the consensus of editors to create uniformity in the particular article. The more modern usage is to avoid an ugly overuse of capitals. Even more it is best to avoid a dog's dinner of different rules for capitalisation on the same page. Look at the rest of the list for this month, look at the discussions on the matter previously. This was settled a long time ago. Jagdfeld (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * May I direct your attention to the Manual of Style on capital letters, particularly the section on titles? For a start, at the very top of the page it is noted that United Kingdom usage tends to include capital letters where other national writers of English would not; this describes perfectly the situation we have here because Eric Varley held a UK Government office.


 * Later down it is said, in terms, that "The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun" and therefore capitalised. Secretary of State is not a generic term but a specific one; Secretary of State for Industry was the correct formal name of an office. I therefore think you have misapplied the guidelines on this, and possibly other, occasions. I would still be interested in finding the previous discussions that have taken place on this issue; there are certainly none on Talk:Deaths in 2008 which I checked first. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_4
Just so that you are aware, I have addressed a comment specifically to you here. I have not commented on this RFC, nor do I intend to; however, I am concerned that there are unforeseen implications to the deletion of it that will have a longterm negative effect on the ability of the community to resolve issues without having to come before the Arbitration Committee. The committee already has enough on its plate without having to address concerns at this level. Risker (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Why don't you go do your job on the C68/FM/SV case instead of interfering with community processes? --Random832 (contribs) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Flathead
Why do you call it vandalism? It's a personal attack on the person who sent Anthrax through the U.S. Postal system. Call a spade a spade (personal attack), not a diamond (vandalism). --122.2.225.174 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know for certain whether this account was used by Bruce Ivins. It may have been wrongly identified. Even if it was correctly identified and the late Dr Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attack, it is still not appropriate to express your feelings on the talk page. To put it mildly, it is very unlikely that the pleasures of reading Wikipedia will be available in the place to which the soul of a callous poisoner would be condemned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for using a talk page to dump my hate, I'll try not to do it anymore. --122.2.225.174 (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Warm Regards, report regarding Abusive Vandalism
Regards, This to report vandalism & using Abusive languages as part of vandalism from New Delhi by IP 117.96.113.237. Hereby we request you Ban of IP 117.96.113.237 & which shud be a lesson for all.

Where Contribution of him is seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rani,_Rajasthan&action=history

Used Farzi word meaning Fraud, Faltu meaning Useless, Gandmara meaning Asshole.

Hope you will do needful, to maintain quality of this encylopedia.

[http://apocalypse.wikia.com/wiki/Apocalypse_Wiki you are invited to join apocopedia, a wiki of apocalyptic scenarios. If you do choose to join, adminship is yours!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyfish (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't generalize 'Basque Nacionalist' involved in political violence -Please ¡¡¡¡
In order to maintain a neutral point of view policy :

- Please for your next writing ,Don't say or generalize saying that  'Basque Nacionalist' involved in political violence  .'Basque Nacionalist' is NOT sinonym of violence or terrorism, Let's point it clearly ,ok ¡¡¡

Because there are Basque Nacionalist parties as Catalan Nacionalist Parties ,and all over Europe .. ,that NEVER used political violence or terrorist violence supporting Nacionalist ideas ( Pnv,Ciu,Eusko alkartasuna,..) that never used nor  supported terrorism or bombs ),

and actually those who defended the violence(political through terrorism ,actually ),currently 'Batasuna', are a minority in the basque country comparing to the rest of political parties including or not the 'Spanish Nacionalist ' or 'unionists'.

The people like Gorostiaga,in Batasuna, (former Herri Batasuna ,Euskal Herritarrok,EHAK,ANV ,..) are involved or have been involved with the supporting of ETA in several decades or years, so let's maintain a neutral point of view policy , and Let's put the true about the violent Nacionalism that they practice ,that is not representative of the 'Basque Nacionalism ',because they are not the 'Basque Nacionalism' they are the terrorist  and mafiosi  Nacionalism.

And Don't present to Gorostiaga like an 'angel ' in the paradise or like a 'saint'in Europe defending political ideas ,because they(Batasuna=ETA) always have been and are behaving like mafiosi and fascist people who do not respect others and menace and kill many people in the name of basques,killing also  basques, aswell as nacionalist basques. And that is a disgrace or misfortune for the rest of Basques who are nacionalist basque or not,and for everyone who has a relative, a friend or someone that have been assasined.

So ,in the name of neutral point of view policy ,I expect that you should look for a place, a web to say ,clearly, that terrorists don't represent 'basque nacionalists' and that Batasuna & ETA are terrorist ,true mafiosi and killers  ,and that the Basques are truly fed up of these stupid 'exploits' of these individuals or groups of Batasuna & Friends.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.133.114 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka arb case
Sam, if a lengthy explanation of a why a recusal is unnecessary is required, that's a pretty good indicator a recusal is necessary. Neıl <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   09:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't required. I guessed that in the circumstances of the case (and specifically because there had been misplaced speculation in the rejected case as to why I had recused) that someone would question why one case had led to a recusal and the other hadn't, so I decided to head it off beforehand. You seem to be arguing for recusal by estoppel which we don't do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite, but thank you for the interesting link - thank you, also, for the explanation; if you feel a recusal isn't required, that's good enough for me. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom
I didn't want to be pulled into the discussion, however, now that I have, I would ask that you not speak on my behalf. Thank you. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that I had done so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
At the C68-FM-SV voting page you included in your vote the comment "in practice different editors have different judgments of what constitutes a minor edit." The Help file says, in part: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Would you consider modifying your comment to indicate clearly that editorial judgment does not extend outside of that "could never be the subject of a dispute" standard, which the community has in no way challenged? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to reflect what happens in practice; in this area, the attitudes of editors in practice may differ from the wording of policy, however clear the policy is. Comments with votes on arbitration matters are by their nature obiter opinions, but I'll reflect on your remarks and see if clarification is necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Alastair Haines
As a member who accepted the case, perhaps you might like to vote on this case. 5 arbs have voted so far - at least 2 more are needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC) ✅

All items pass now, and there's a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

P.I.S.S
My page is not an attack on other peoples work it is my own work from the institue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembay (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RFArb case
Hi Sam. I've just been doing a bit of thinking about the MZMcBride casename should it be accepted. I'm not sure anything with Sarah Palin in the title would be good at all, simply because of delicate nature of the person involved, and the fact that our article dispute has been documented in a number of news articles. Maybe something along the lines of Requests for arbitration/Protection wheel war might be better (should it be accepted). Just a thought anyway.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning BenjiBoi's topic ban
His response to your .. hrm.. request? Anyway, it is found here, please read and reconsider.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Hindu law jurists
Category:Hindu law jurists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Philip Zec
Thanks for stopping by and improving the above. Much appreciated. Dick G (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - C68-FM-SV
We're nearing the end of this case. :) If you can vote on proposed remedy 6, then I think we'll be done. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)✅

To abstain or not to abstent
Hope you saw my response. As I said there, sorry if it was conveyed as insulting your intelligence. Regards, Cau  lde  17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Echo NE2. Thank you guys for your efforts. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppets
Hi. I placed a 'suspected sockpuppet' notice for Tre2 (Cmmmm) about a week ago. The user has neither confirmed not denied sockpuppetting (though Tre2 has since not made any edits), and nothing seems to have happened at the sockpuppets page. What happens now?--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Reginald Moss
Hi, Thanks for the mail. I had a look on Leigh Rayments Peerage page and found a date of birth and a year of death. I checked the GRO register which showed him dying in June 2003 at Hastings - also gave his middle name on both sources so added - I checked the GRO index for his birth but it did not show it. The index is good only for England and Wales and it could be that he was born elsewhere. I have access to the Index through my genealogy research.

Charles Beattie
Hi, I see you've done a lot of work on Charles Beattie. I assume you will be nominating that for GA or FA status?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Hello, sir. Regarding this protection, I need to correct a mistake on there regarding my name. Thomas Michael William Patrick Sales 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't mean to be a pain in the arse, but that user that you protected the talk page on has not only violated the 3RR, but he then went on to do 14 reverts in a row, accusing me of being the IP who edit warred him. Thomas Michael William Patrick Sales 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Input request
Hi. Last year, you granted an unblock request from me. I am now the subject of a community discussion at Administrators%27_noticeboard. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, --G2bambino (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I unblocked based on a discussion at the noticeboard rather than unilaterally. I will take a look at the discussion and see if I can usefully add to it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)