User talk:Snowspinner~enwiki/Archive 5

Policy changes
I'm largely in agreement with your criticism, although I wouldn't put the proportion of problem users quite so high as your estimate of 30%. What sort of attempts to foster appropriate policy changes are in progress? I'd like to help out, in the hope that matters can be improved before I give up and follow you out the door. JamesMLane 10:18, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad you let yourself be persuaded. Since you've decided to stick it out, and because I know you're interested in developing ways to deal with disruptive users, I have a case you may want to look at. To deal with this particular situation, I have adopted a new approach that might be able to establish some basis for community-supported blocks in advance of Arbitration Committee action. See Requests for comment/33451. --Michael Snow 22:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Here is one more unto you: how come my serious comments are ignored, while perceiving personal attacks you grab a keyboard? You want a serious talk? Me too. Please comment on my serious remarks. Mikkalai 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) And BTW, FUI, it was me who was attacked for a single revert with threats to kick my ass out of wikipedia. Say hello to your buddy. Mikkalai 00:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...And I could have threatened your buddy to lock *him* out for single-handedly threatening people with administrative actions without proper arbitration. Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Again, I didn't start this personal war. This makes me no better, but what about you? Mikkalai 01:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit
I hate to disagree with you, but even Jimbo Wales suggested speedy deleting these ridiculous stubs on sight. Please work with me on this. Thanks much. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IRC Banning
[Courtesy copy of my response on my talk page. -- orthogonal 06:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

IRC has no written policies that I know of. Furthermore, being an op in IRC has nothing to do with being an admin on Wikipedia. Lots of Wikipedia admins are not IRC ops, and, actually, I was an IRC op before I was a Wikipedia admin. But if you want to complain, the three people with the highest level of op status in IRC are Xirzon and Fire. That said, they've both been gone for more than two weeks. I think the next in command is Fennec - he's the freenode group contact. Snowspinner 05:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I checked up, and Fennec is definitely the guy who's actually in charge. So I'd talk to him. Snowspinner 05:54, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Snowspinner, I'm delighted that you've abandoned your decision to "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". But if Fennec is, as you say, "the freenode group contact", then he's the contact for Wikipedia and therefore representing Wikipedia as its agent. In that capacity, his giving you "op" privileges is an act by wikipedia. Similarly, your use of those privileges to ban is a Wikipedia act.


 * Also, you appear to have visited the talk pages of the sysops here that I complained to, in order to explain you were "not amused". As I've tried to explain to you before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and whether or not you're amused, your opinion does not and should not carry more weight than any else -- despite your attempts to make unilateral changes to policy pages and to instruct other users about what you consider the beliefs of the Wikipedia community. In particular, your unilateral banning and threats to ban, on both Wikipedia and in IRC, are quite simply an abuse of power, no matter how you came by that power. -- orthogonal 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not hold the position that events on IRC are beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee although some arbitrators do. Fred Bauder 12:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I hope that IRC will stay entirely beyond the jurisdiction of the AC (as well as of the Foundation) and that users will be banned on the irc channels based on their behavior on the irc channel and the opinion of irc users only. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Semi-policy
Hiya Snowspinner. I'm trying to understand your reasoning behind the idea of semi policy. What's the point of it? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal Discovery
In order to prepare my defense in the RfC you opened on me, I've been looking for a page named User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, in which you, Snowspinner, declared that you would "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". However, this page now appears to be blank.

I know it was there as of 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC), because I linked to it at that time. It hasn't been listed at [wp:VfD] since that time, nor has it been listed at Speedy Deletion, so I'm a bit at a loss.

And I can't even find your creation of it in your user Contributions.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 22:56, 30 Aug 2004 Niteowlneils deleted "User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal" (user page/req--content was: 'This page was silly and immature of me, and I would like to nuke it please.
 * -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah. Snowspinner, can you provide me with a copy of the deleted page, please? -- orthogonal 02:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The deleted page
[Couresty copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 15:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

I removed the portion of my complaint about your userpage after you changed it. I would hope that you would also let go the issue of that page once I changed it. If you really want to use as evidence a page I've already admitted was immature and a bad idea though, and which, incidentally, I apologize for as well, let me know. Snowspinner 14:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept your apology for that page, and I thank you for the apology.


 * I think your "orthogonal" page is necessary for my response to the whole RfC. It's necessary because my argument will be a bit different from yours: I will not complain that you had that page or that you linked to it (although I think it's only fair to note I linked to words you wrote on my user page, and you linked to words you wrote, which is a big difference: I let you be characterized by your own words, you characterized me by your words).


 * I emphatically do not think you can be sanctioned for having that page or for linking to it, at all. You wrote a page of your opinion about me, and you are entitled to your opinion. It was rude, but rude is not something you should be sanctioned for. (Proponents of "No Personal Attacks" or "Remove Personal Attacks" might disagree. I can't speak for them.)


 * Furthermore, I believe that you are entitled to display that opinion on your user sub-page and to link to that sub-page from wherever you wish (on Wikpedia and talk pages, of course, not from articles themselves). I will also note you argued that User:Plato did not have similar rights as regarded his "red faction" page, so I can't say to you everyone believes you have the right to display that opinion here on Wikipedia, and as with sanctioning, I suspect some would argue the page contravened the "No Personal attacks" policy even if they would not argue for sanctioning you for it.


 * But I'd be quite prepared to argue that you have a right to write any opinion you want on your user or user sub-pages, so long as it's not libelous, and I will not in any way ask that you be sanctioned for having, holding, or giving your opinions.


 * However, according to Request for Comments, "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed."


 * I will argue that your "orthogonal" page indicates that you were not trying to resolve the dispute you have with me, because that "orthogonal" page indicted that you would never reply to, or even consider, anything I addressed to you. Further, I will argue that your asking another sysop to remove your "orthogonal" page just hours before you opened the RfC was a deliberate attempt to hide evidence of that.


 * Additionally, I will argue that having seen that page (and I didn't know it was gone until I went to look for it in order to formulate this argument) and understanding that you intended to ignore anything I might say to you, exacerbated the revert war you had with me (and others) in the hours before you opened the RfC, over
 * Wikipedia:Semi-policy,
 * Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks,
 * Wikipedia:What is a troll,
 * Wikipedia:Proposal not accepted by the community,
 * User:Orthogonal/Calvinball,
 * and with Mirv after you filed the RfC over
 * Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and
 * Wikipedia_talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.


 * So I hope you will see that it's not a matter of "letting go" of a page you changed, but a matter of whether you opened the RfC under false pretenses or not, and whether therefore your certification was false, making the entire RfC invalid. To show this, I need to be able to quote from your "orthogonal" page and the history of that page.


 * Finally, I think in a discovery process, it's poor form to cavil about requests for information germane to the subject of the dispute. I hope that you'll deliver the requested page as soon as you reasonably can.


 * Thanks. -- orthogonal 15:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Trial or way of gathering community comments
[Courtesy copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Which is RfC then? If we're in a "discovery" phase and your goal is to show the charge invalid, that's one thing. If this is about getting community comments so we can come to an agreement, that's another. So tell me which one we're doing, please, and I'll respond accordingly. Snowspinner 15:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is, it has a stated procedure. The procedure must be followed, as David Vasquez and I both go into at length on the RfC's talk page; you can review that for the arguments if you have specific questions about it. To not follow the procedure, is to create bad precedents that may take away rights from people using the RfC procedure in the future.


 * Directly above, you wrote "If you really want to use as evidence [that] page... let me know", and I let you know that it's key to part of my response. But now your response is to come back and ask more questions, and tell me your response is conditioned on my answers. -- orthogonal 15:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Courtesy copy from my talk page. -- orthogonal 16:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

And when I thought you were using it to respond to issues and try to reach some agreement with me, that was one thing. If you're going to just use it to continue on the legalistic angle, quite frankly, I think that's counterproductive, and I'm more inclined to sit back and let the RFC die off. Since you appear to be valuing legalism and procedure over an opportunity to actually bridge the gap between us, I've got to say, I'm not that inclined to be helpful. Give me a sign you're looking to use this as anything other than an opportunity to let pedantry and rules lawyering obstruct dealing with real issues and I suspect we could work together to overcome this. Snowspinner 16:13, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll just quote what David Vasquez wrote when you suggested scrapping the RfC for Mediation on 15:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) and leave it at that.


 * David Vasquez wrote:
 * That would be unfair to orthogonal.


 * The basic fairness of this Request for Comment has been called into dispute, and you now want to conveniently skip past the proper process for considering this matter and escalate it to mediation, which would then tar orthogonal with the additional stigma that comes with being accused in that forum as well.


 * -- orthogonal 16:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My remark that orthogonal quoted above is now obsolete, as several other Admins and community members took the time to explain some common sense for how the policies around here should be applied. Snowspinner, if you are the voice of calm, maturity, and experience, I'm puzzled why you didn't set me straight, given that I am a new contributor.


 * Now that a few days have elapsed, it would appear the community has now spoken, and the community's answer (thanks Michael Snow) to the Rfc appears to be "mediation could have been the first step", without pasting this scarlet letter onto orthogonal's chest in the first place.


 * Also, Ambi was gracious enough to inform me that Mediation is not really an escalation of Request for Comment.


 * Snowspinner, as an experienced Admin, why didn't you know all of this?


 * If you are the calm, mature, and more experienced contributor to Wikipedia, and especially if you are interested in helping to drive new policy initiatives, why didn't you abandon the back and forth with orthogonal at the first sign you two wouldn't hit it off, and find another neutral contributor who could look at the situation and find the bridges that have eluded the both of you? (Or agree to give each other a wide berth and find other contributors to collaborate with?)


 * Snowspinner, if Wikipedia is more important to you than "winning" over orthogonal, as a good faith gesture, why not find a neutral third party (does it have to be an Admin?) to help this discussion along, even before it lands in Mediation?


 * It is obviously too difficult for either of you to work this out by addressing each other directly, so even if orthogonal keeps flailing about for a while, why don't you take the high road as an Admin and reach out to others for some direct assistance, (without relying on any new policy initiatives)?


 * After having it explained to me, this whole Rfc is just embarassing and silly given that the Mediation option was always a first option and never really an escalation, right?


 * orthogonal is not claiming to be a leader. He's working as an individual contributor for now. But Snowspinner, if you aspire to lead others in this great endeavor, why not set the tone and start thinking outside of the box you and orthogonal find yourselves in?


 * If you really want to "win" over orthogonal, and show how your disdain of "WikiLawyering" is justified, the best way you could do so would be to take a more hands on approach to resolving this situation, instead of proposing stricter policy and looking for ways to boot orthogonal out of here.


 * Indeed, it will be a Pyrrhic victory at best, if you do manage to get an individual contributor booted, because of the coercive environment such an action will create for other dissenting voices who sometimes heatedly contribute to the richness of Wikipedia.


 * I've been mighty impressed how folks in this community step up if you just ask them man-to-man for help. Am I just overly optimistic to expect that you could do the same thing here?


 * Snowspinner, it's time for someone to show leadership, not their policing abilities. I encourage you to step up to the plate and show orthogonal and the rest of us what you're really made of.


 * Even orthogonal will have no choice but to follow if you will only lead the way.


 * Peace,


 * --DV 07:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution
Hi Snowspinner. Your request for edit attribution from an IP was rejected. Please see Changing attribution for an edit/Rejected requests. Thanks  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 11:04, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
 * Ah, then I shall abuse Tim for not removing the old request. :-) Regards  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 22:44, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Blocked user
Thanks for the blocking of (period). Where did he impersonate me? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Could have been worse, then. Thanks for the quick reply. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Good addition to the policy - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

unauthorized bots
Then help me and tell me what the proper procedure for running an unauthorized bot is? -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not the template itself, but all the articles which are using it. See Special:Contributions/Jdforrester. No human can edit that fast.  Look deeper in his history for more examples.  Obvious bot-tery. -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In the exact order as Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox Biography?? As an admin, please tell me how to report this, even if you think I'm wrong, I can't imagine such a perfect string of edits in so short a time. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner: I noticed the accidental deletion just before I received your message, although I'm still not sure how it happened. Thanks for the quick reversion, in any event. CJCurrie

Xed block
I unblocked him: though he appears to be no more than a common troll, he at least deserves the courtesy of a warning, just in case he's an honest but misguided user. &#8212;No-One Jones (mail) 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * His warning came in the form of his previous block by no fewer than five users for this exact behavior a few days ago. Snowspinner 23:31, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

I see. In that case, block away. &#8212;No-One Jones (mail) 23:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche
I agree that both the LaRouche articles have problems, and I would welcome someone else working on them - I am sick of the whole subject and have other things to do. But Herschelkrustofsy is not a bona fide editor, he is a LaRouche propagandist, a proved liar and a disgusting slanderer (of me among many others). Any serious encyclopaedia project would ban him outright, but the best that can be done here is to revert his edits, which I will go on doing. Adam 06:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:WikiWatch and RfA
Why will I be blocked for simply listing myself for a nomination? Isn't that the purpose of the RfA page? &mdash; WikiWatch 15:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic
Ok Mintguy (T) 18:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much. I know we disagree sometimes, but some admins need to go read the policies a little closer. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I really thought the poll was doomed too, but there have only been 11 votes and 4-7 is hardly clear. It can stand to remain for one more week - especially since Mintguy's proposed poll is still just a skeleton. I am already assuming the first poll will fail, and am putting efforts to a better one (see User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll). I do intend to restore the survey in progress. Removing it is a slap-in-the-face to the survey guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Edits of Lyndon LaRouche article
Regarding your message on my talk page: there are basically two competing versions of the article now. I am editing the one that I consider to be more in keeping with NPOV. Everytime someone reverts to the other one, they are deleting information that I and others have added, so it's a two way street. Weed Harper 21:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I accept the case. Can we start tomorrow. I am too tired today. Danny 00:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you think the article is a POV mess, then you or any other bona fide editor is free to fix it, with my blessings. But (to repeat) Herschelkrustofsky is not a bona fide editor, he is a LaRouche propagandist, a liar and a slanderer. I certainly have no intention of "debating" with him. See also my note at the Talk page. Adam 01:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I say "not a bona fide editor I am not referring to the pusillanimous verdict of the Arbcom, I am making a comment on his motives (and Weed Harper's too, although he is not as obnoxious). He, like all LaRouche cultists, acts only to spread LaRouche propaganda, and anyone editing these articles has to take this into account. Adam 01:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I have said at the Talk page, I am refraining from reverting - for now. Adam 02:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attn Snowspinner, please note that I have attempted edits of Lyndon LaRouche according to your guidelines, and Adam and Andy have gone back to edit war. Weed Harper 15:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RFA
I'll remove it myself, but thanks. I was thinking of removing it anyway, because I am thoroughly sick of the politics involved in doing almost anything new or different on Wikipedia (because so many people seem to hate me for creating Substub and Template:Substub). [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 01:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sexist language in Wikipedia
Recently, I stumbled across in Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style a section about a user who wants Wikipedia to use sexist language. How common are Wikipedians of this kind?? 66.245.100.121 19:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "Not very common". Look at what I wrote at the bottom of Talk:Non-sexist language. Any comments about that?? 66.245.100.121 19:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User talk:66.167.235.16
Re: User talk:66.167.235.16 there have been no edits to that page for about the last seven hours so if you want to add it to lamest edit wars ever go right ahead. Even if it carries on once added it's a case of example in action so to speak... -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 11:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Self promotion?
I notice you have deleted a link to a non-commercial online catalogue of micronatioon and secessionist states coinage (authored by me) on the Micronation page noting it as "self promotional". Please explain how a reference site that has been quoted at length by multiple specialist publications, and is recognised by them as the only comprehensive, credible source of data on this subject - including Stamp News (Aust), Australasian Coin & Banknote Magazine (Aust), The Cinderella Philatelist (UK) and Krause Publications (US) - can possibly represent an instance of "self promotion". --Gene_poole 03:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I noticed you restored the link just after I posted this. Thanks. --Gene_poole 07:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My only comment on this is that I think Snowspinner is doing an excellent job trying to resolve a dispute between three editors which is quickly becoming a peeing match. As I pointed out in the edit summary, it is against Wikiquette to link to one's own website from a Wikipedia article, in light of item 18 of what Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia is not "A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion".  If this link is truly relevent, I am sure that other editors will add it back in due course. Samboy 23:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Old NASA image templates
Thanks for your heads-up. I've put Template:NASA photos and Template:NASA-image up for speedy deletion. --Ardonik.talk 17:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

No Prayer for the Dying
Hi. Why did you delete this page? This is a valid article. RedWolf 02:32, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Odd Jodeci revert
What was the reason for this revert? The reverted edit looks valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jodeci&curid=239452&diff=0&oldid=0 --dreish 14:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

State of limbo
I'm confused by the continuing existence of Requests_for_comment/Xed. Since your edit, it seems to have been put into limbo. I feel like Terence Stamp in a Superman film.--Xed 16:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Block of User:NetBot
Your block of that bot is not motivated by anything other than dislike of me personally. The bot is working flawlessly from a technical perspective, and I have followed all provisions in the Bot policy. I ask you to remove the block, since it was imposed during the required "test and demonstration" phase of the bot authorization request process. I have further replied at Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

"Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark"
Hello, I'd like to ask the reason you removed the tag I had inserted on top of Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark. Please reply on the article's talk page. Thank you. Etz Haim 02:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calistean
Would you care to write something about the notability of this on Talk:Calistean? Charles Matthews 12:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Admin help requested
This redirect was today pointed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and eminated from Stolen Honor Documentary. I deleted the Wiki link from Stolen Honor and edited the redirect to the creator of it. I did this because it was vandalism, I did not know how else to deal with it. Please advise me of your opinion on this and make any corrections you see fit. 02:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

dumb article creation
sorry :) I thought i could delete it immediately after, my bad. won't happen again. --kizzle 03:06, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

D6
Please check Wikipedia talk:People by year/Delete and Wikipedia talk:Bots. Obviously, I'd appreciate if you'd deblock the bot. -- User:Docu

Guanaco
Welcome to the wonderful world of dealing with Guanaco. You might want to consider taking up banging your head against a wall, you'll get more satisfaction. RickK 21:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Ack! That picture is creeping me out for some reason. RickK 22:37, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Departure
I'm on an indefinite Wikivacation due to my inability to perform simple tasks without being disrupted by trolls.

If you're wondering why I'm gone, please direct your concerns to User:Orthogonal or User:Netoholic. Snowspinner 00:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please do not vandalize Wikipedia pages, especially a page as important as Requests for Arbitration. If you continue, you may be hit in the head by a sock puppet and placed on Requests for comment. ugen64 01:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sad that you have left. Take a wikivacation and please come back soon! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ack. Come back soon! And I wouldn't worry about Netoholic too much - he may have escaped a hardban by stopping vandalising VFD, but he's not exacting winning friends and influencing people at the moment. Ambi 05:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is stupid, I refuse to allow you or anyone else to continue defaming me openly like this. A "hardban" was NEVER an option, and your definition of "vandalism" needs to checked against Vandalism.  Do you realize that just by making these statements and saying that I'm not making friends, you are making it impossible for me to do that?  I spent a couple hours trying to work out things with Snowspinner on IRC, but he refused to end this stupid fight.  All I want is for you to assume good faith (or maybe even stupidity) for the actions you accuse me of, and to stop with this rhetoric. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)


 * How long is one supposed to assume good faith before finally giving up because of the trolling? Well, there we go ... another good editor driven out by the trolls and vandals.  Come back when you've had a good vacation, Snowspinner.  RickK 19:10, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

When you return, could you direct me to the consensus of support for your addition to the user page policy? Thanks. &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 21:56, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I hope you check here on occasion. It would help me greatly to determine my vote as an arbitrator to be informed if there are any cases where Netoholic personally attacked any user (you included) at Wikipedia proper. Jurisdiction over IRC is very confused right now, and if the only instances in which Netoholic made personal attacks occurred in IRC, I don't know if there's enough other evidence to warrant accepting arbitration (although I will reconsider the other complaints to be certain of this). Any diffs you can provide would be very helpful. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 22:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S. I will also consider carefully how I think IRC evidence should be viewed -- I'm not certain it can't be used. But I want to make sure I'm consistent about this, and in the meantime, any other evidence would be helpful. Thanks.

He's back, right? w00t! - Nat Krause 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RickK just told me what happened. If anyone can relate with your frustration, it's yours truly. Take a vacation...you deserve it...but please check in every so often. Don't be another fine editor who blew up over the dregs. - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)