User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 4

Good To See You Back
Hey!! Good to see you back. Actually, things have been rather crazy for me so I haven't had much WP time let alone MedCab time, I would have no problems serving as Deputy Coordinator or Co-Coordinator or something if you wanted to step back in again. I'd be happy to mentor/help in any way I can through the tough times because I've had my share. My current wiki-break is totally RL induced but I'm reachable. Let me know. Also, I like your AdCab proposal as well, very cool. Will try to give some more feedback when I get a chance. --Wgfinley 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian people
Advocate_Cabal

I'm glad there is an advocate involved in this case. I'm the cabal mediator for this case. Unfortunately Zmmz is partly right: I haven't yet managed to do much that deserves the title mediation because people on the Talk:Persian_people page create a lot of noise.

That is unfortunately what most of it is: Noise. There are many links brought as evidence against User:Aucaman but many seem to point to arbitrary edits which provide no evidence whatsoever. This is not to say that there is no evidence of misconduct by Aucaman but the group to which Zmmz belongs seems to create an inadequate amount of complaints, see:


 * Talk:Persian_people
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Requests_for_comment/Aucaman

I'll further check the provided references and try to mediate between the groups. The claim that the mediation process has failed is something I have to reject at this time. --Fast e n talk/med 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you so much! May I have your permission to reformat it to fit on my User page? :D Radio  Kirk   talk to me  02:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I am so sorry for the delay in responding; I missed that amongst the various other things on my talk page! Why of course, there's no need to ask. :-) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, and, thanks again! Radio  Kirk   talk to me  20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Office Instructions
I would like to know how the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article. It seems that anytime things are inserted into the article, even with citations, an admin invariably removes the inserted information, claiming that it is a violation of WP:OFFICE.

So, how exactly has the direct application of WP:OFFICE changed the guidelines for the creation of the Justin Berry article, and how do these guidelines differ from the normal guidelines regulating the content of an article? Are a certain number of citations needed? Are certain facts, no matter how verifiable, not to be allowed? Since you are one of the many administrators who have been reflexively clearing the article of what appear to be perfectly factual pieces of information, but who have not justified this removal besides making a vague allusion to WP:OFFICE, I think you owe not only me but every other user who has tried to reconstruct Justin Berry a clearly articulated, detailed answer. I will also be posting this to the talk page of the article, in the hopes that other admins engaged in the reverting will respond. Corax 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected Justin Berry. Semi-protection is not to be used to enforce content except in cases of vandalism. Feel free to fully protect it if the edit war warrants it. —Guanaco 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Waya sahoni
I hope you are aware that Waya is currently a party to a request for arbitration. (I'm one of his targets.) At least one of the arbitrators has expressed a desire to hear the case. You might want to reconsider your block until the arbitration is over. (Not that I pretend to understand Wiki policy. I thought the account should have been blocked weeks ago.) — MediaMangler 04:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please unblock Waya sahoni until the arbitration has concluded. --Bookofsecrets 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please leave waya sahoni blocked until after the arbcom proceedings. Let arbcom deal with the WP:NLT, WP:NPA and WP:SOCK allegations before unleashing him on wikipedia again. [] should be reason enough to leave the lid on. Vigilant 05:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please leave the block in place! We can finally get some productive editing done without his constant disruption.  If Arbcom decides it is best, they can let him back with appropriate restrictions. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * yada yada yada. --Bookofsecrets 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Minor FYI: the {sockpuppet} tag you used is missing any evidence. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I added an link to the CheckUser request as evidence. There are several alternative pages of evidence which could be used. — MediaMangler 15:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Waya sahoni so he can continue to contribute outside the Jeff Merkey pages and respond to allegations in his RFAr. —Guanaco 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The RfAr can proceed with him blocked. All comments have been made in the dispute, and it's now up to the arbcom to decide on the facts. Unblocking this user is a huge mistake. He's made repeated legal threats on multiple users here, has on-going litigation on the wikimedia foundation, and has harassed me and other users, including Jimbo Wales. Unblocking this user so that he can continue his drama and tie up my time and time of other editors is a huge mistake, in my humble opinion. I hope that you reconsider. --BWD(talk) 16:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Waya is blocked. —Guanaco 19:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is now using another IP sockpuppet. [] Vigilant 09:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for grins, I've been scanning the wikigadugi.org site. Here's a note from someone who professed *not* to be Jeff Merkey and professed to be living in Texas. Enjoy.


 * "== SQL Update ==


 * I have had to increase the mysql tables to 128 TB in MAX ROWS in order to import all of the images and page revisions. I had the server offline Sunday while the merge compeleted. I have it backup now. I have setup and tuned the DB parms to allow 500 MB key caching, so we now are equivalent to Wikipedia in terms of capacity. This setup will be moved to a facility with dual T3 lines later this month and ont a server with 4 x Xeon processors, which will speed things up even more. For now, I seem to be able to handle users and crawlers hitting the site. So its up. I am still downloading the images files, they are huge. Imports will run through the next several days. Waya sahoni 12:37, 27 March 2006 (MST)"

And we're back to the user named sockpuppets to avoid showing an hsd1.ut.comcast.net. [] Another day, another sockpuppet. Vigilant 06:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [] Jeff needs a hobby that takes him out of doors. Vigilant 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And another Vigilant 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

afd closing
Thank you for closing that AfD early. I seriously was about to be bold and delete more than half of the anon-ip comments on there (and a couple of the registered users ones who would have been taken out of context by the deletion.) That article deletion was a disgrace to wikipedia, glad it's gone. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  20:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Swatjester. Good move. Bucketsofg 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, WP:DEL states, "Please do not remove any statements from a deletion discussion." :) --David.Mestel 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Premature closing of AfD?
Could you please explain your reasoning behind the premature closing of the AfD on Innatheism (please note that I was not the author of that article and am not acting on his behalf, but in the interests of fairness) - you gave the reason that it was "descending into a cesspool". This is in clear violation of WP:DEL, which states that the only reason for an early closing for an early closing is "clear consensus", which clearly did not exist (only 12-5), and that "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." Since I was engaged in a debate with another user (his reply to me was just one minute before you guillotined the debate), substantive debate was clearly occuring. I'm sure that you have a perfectly valid explanation for this, and I am curious to hear it. --David.Mestel 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a Deletion Review - there's a principle at stake here. --David.Mestel 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Impressed
Hi Nicholas Turnbull. I was extremely impressed by your taking the time to write a lengthy and cogent response atUser talk:David.Mestel. Especially considering that the guy was being a bit provocative. I was so impressed that even though I don't much know your work otherwise, I am confidant that you deserve this. Herostratus 09:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC) }Thanks for you kind reply,and yes of course. Herostratus
 * Can I second that? Thanks Nicholas - although I didn't quite agree with some of the allegations of fact in your little guide, it was useful to learn that policies are really only more like guidelines.  By the way, doesn't a barnstar count as a userbox?  --David.Mestel 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Provocative? Moi?

Biased deletion of userboxes
I don't know why you could possibly think it's any of your business to go and delete userboxes that you don't agree with for personal reasons. Please restore the feminist userboxes immediately, or at least explain why you have deleted them. Did a feminist piss you off once? Or do you just hate women? Regardless of the reason, there is no justification for thinking that it is your right to control what userboxes other individuals choose to use. I await your response, and the restoration of the userboxes that you have stolen. Romarin 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Romarin. I am myself a male supporter of feminism and have the corresponding userbox. Strangely enough (and fortunately) you did not think of deleting it. Please explain why you think that feminist is in any way a form of "discrimination on the basis of gender". That statement is most utterly flawed; the aim of feminism is to promote equality between sexes in a world that certainly needs it. It is in no way a discrimination against anyone. If you don't understand a movement that has proved its worth and has helped to shape our society then don't interfere with others' beliefs and userboxes. I see that you are very involved in Wikipedia and am sure that you will answer this without delay. --IronChris 17:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Romarin: I am sorry that you disagree with my deletion of those userboxes. Wikipedia works on the principles of collaboration and discussion, and no deletions except for images are irreversible; I am always willing to reconsider and re-evaluate decisions that I make, especially where others have an interest in them. I am grateful for your feedback.


 * In response to the above, I would like to make it perfectly clear to you that I have no like or dislike of feminists as a consequence of their views - nor do I as a consequence of any other political methodology - and that I consider equality across gender to be of paramount importance in society. I have absolutely nothing against feminists as individuals, and most emphatically do not hold discriminatory views against women. I cannot stress that point to you enough. I would say that your ad hominem accusations that I had any personal agenda on the matter, or indeed that I hate women, are beyond the realms of acceptability on your part and are quite unjustified. Please assume good faith of other Wikipedia editors, especially where bad faith is not evident. I'd like you, if it may perhaps place your allegations of misogyny on my part at rest, to please check through my contributions and determine for yourself whether any discussion or other editorial participation that I have engaged in demonstrates evidence of such a charge. I am confident that this is not the case. I must also aver that Wikipedia editorial decision-making should never be taken as a basis on which to accuse someone of holding a particular viewpoint.


 * As a Wikipedia administrator, it is my duty to maintain an environment for the creation of articles that conform to the NPOV policy, and also to create an environment where editors are not personally discriminated against on the grounds of gender, beliefs or opinion. I consider that a userbox to advertise feminism has specific undesirable connotations in regard to the promotion of discrimination against Wikipedia users who are not female; in addition, the potential for the userboxes to be misused in POV bloc voting via the "What links here" button on the templates is too great to ignore. Feminism does not in my personal view have any place on Wikipedia, except in encyclopaedic articles describing the subject. Likewise I do not consider my personal views to have any bearing on the work that I do, and would never allow my own personal convictions to affect the way that I would either treat other users nor as to my level of conformance with Wikipedia policies. It gives the incorrect impression that the maintenance of discriminatory points of view is acceptable when editing Wikipedia to allow such templates to exist, which is not the case. As the founder of Wikipedia, User:Jimbo Wales, wrote:


 * "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian."


 * On that basis I believe userbox templates that promote feminism would clearly fall under the CSD T1 criteria of being "divisive or inflammatory", and thus consider my action in deleting those userboxes to be perfectly justified for the good of the project. Regarding that you consider I have no justification to take the act of deleting userboxes into my own hands - as a Wikipedia administrator, I consider it to be my duty to keep levels of discrimination and POV bloc voting as low as possible, as I am entrusted with the maintenance of the good of the project by the community. I have "stolen" nothing; indeed, if a harsh description was necessary, "destroyed" would perhaps have been more apt. I do hope I have perhaps clarified my decision somewhat to you. Please do feel free to contact me on my talk page, or indeed via e-mail, should you have any further concerns. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, which is indeed elloquent. However, your agruments and reasonings do not seems to me to be entirely logical. First of all, if you are, as you state, against userboxes that promote POV, and not against feminism, then why pick on feminism alone? Why are the pacifist, environmentalist, and anti-racist userboxes still available? Why are political boxes and religious boxes still available? These topics are all just as subjective, and as potentially "divisive and inflammatory", as feminism.


 * Secondly, how can the useage of a feminist userbox be discriminatory againt users who are not female? Feminism is, as it explains in the Feminism article, a movement for equality between the sexes. There is a userbox for males who support feminism. This one, I have just noticed, was deleted since my first message to you earlier. I would ask why you did this in hindsight; why not from the beginning? Do you (or did you, before you were called on it) feel that it is ok for men to support feminism on Wikipedia, but not for women to do so?


 * Having a userbox for feminism is, in my view, an educational tool. The userbox links to the article Feminism, and so anyone who is interested in clicking on the link from someone's userbox is then taken to the article where they can learn for themselves that the feminist movement is about political, economic and social equality for women and men. In my opinion, people who consider feminism to be a "divisive and inflammatory" topic are doing the movement a grave disservice. Regardless of your feelings toward feminists or toward women, your negativity toward the education of both women and men about what feminism is will only further a general negativity toward the movement itself, and toward those who identify with it. This, not the presence of userboxes, creates a devisive and inflammatory environment. I would therefore argue that by censoring access to educational information regarding the feminist movement, you are, despite what you say, demonstrating a personal bias against it.


 * Let it be stated for the record that I appreciate your efforts as an administrator to do what you believe is right for the Wikipedia community. However, I do not feel that you are on the right path, for the reasons stated above. I would also warn you that in your quest to eliminate POV, despite what you say, you may be seen as furthering your own biases by many more in the community than just myself. --Romarin 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK Nicholas, I see that you also deleted the male supporter of feminism userbox. Thanks for backing up your position honestly. Really, I find that it is an interesting position that you have on userboxes. You believe that they are suceptible to promote inflammatory reactions or even POV bloc voting. Then why not delete all user boxes (I think this is your point of view)? Deleting only a few specific userboxes is not consistant with your anti-userbox policies in general and doesn't support your position.


 * I really don't understand why a userbox encouraging gender equality is more at risk of causing these kinds of reactions than any political (communist, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, republican, democrat, just to mention a few) or religious ones (catholic, pagan, creationist, anti-creationist, spaghetti-monster follower, etc.). Come on, there are even some promoting the consumption of drugs and alcohol! I don't see you (or anyone) deleting those. Personally, i think that any non-insulting userboxes should be allowed. But I can understand why some people might argue that userboxes promoting drugs, sex, alcohol, etc. are a risk, not only for the reasons you have stated, but, for example, in case young users of Wikipedia come across them.


 * So I think that until a decision has been taken on allowing or deleting all userboxes, you should let others decide what user boxes they want to use (again, unless they are directly insulting a minority, belief, political opinion, etc., even though I'm sure some of those exist). My point on that is that whether userboxes are allowed or not, nothing is stopping users to write the exact same thing as figures already in the userboxes on their page. The only difference is that it is faster to set up, nicer (little pictures, colours) and humourous. But this is getting into the whole dilemma about keeping or deleting userboxes.


 * If you think a feminist userbox is dangerous, tell me what you think about these : (Added nowiki tags for brevity of message length --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Please tell me why a feminist userbox is more divisive than any of the ones I have put as examples above. As I said earlier, I support userboxes, since nothing can stop users writing their content themselves. I just put these as examples of ones that I find way more divisive and often less justifiable than the ones you are attacking. Regards, IronChris 21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear IronChris: Firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to discuss this issue with me, and for explaining your rationale as to why you feel my actions were incorrect. I greatly appreciate your feedback as to my decision to delete those userboxes. I must sincerely apologise for not having replied to you personally about this matter; my workload has, alas, somewhat limited my time available for Wikipedia editing.


 * In your message above you raise some very pertinent and astute points about the deletions that I carried out (as User:Romarin likewise did) which I admit I had not considered specifically when I carried out the deletions. Allow me to respond to your points individually:


 * Why I have not deleted all userboxes - you are right, there is a certain pattern of thought that would dictate all userboxes should be deleted under such a rationale. However I believe there is a distinction to be made between userboxes which clearly promote a particular political or otherwise polemic POV; personally I see less concern with those userboxes that are not related to politics and ideology than those that are simply because of the fact that where less contention is present surrounding the issues, POV bloc voting would seem far less probable. Where contention is not held on issues, there is less motivation towards skewing Wikipedia process in order to achieve the outcomes of the viewpoint held - since the vested interest in doing so is far reduced. I would concede however that this does not mean there would be no interest in vote canvassing of this variety; it is my interest to reduce the amount of bloc voting where possible, but it would be quite unrealistic to expect the problem to be remedied by deleting all userboxes (since POV bloc voting definitely occurred before userboxes even existed, back in 2004 when I first joined Wikipedia and the only boxes available were those Babel boxes indicating one's spoken languages). It is my view that it is reasonable to permit people to use userboxes which are not liable to give rise towards campaign-type issues. Indeed, I see far less of a problem with people simply using raw userbox code on their pages versus a transcluded template without an associated category, even for contentious issues; this is because the bloc voting concerns would be greatly mitigated, although ideally I'd prefer Wikipedia to be free of advertisement of points of view completely. However I do have a specific concern with the transclusion of userbox templates where contentious POV issues are being expounded by those userboxes, due to the "What links here" and category bloc voting issues.


 * Why I considered a userbox that was "promoting gender equality" to be a risk, as you worded it - In fact, I do not have an issue with a userbox that promotes gender equality, as you will note by the fact that I deliberately have not deleted the userbox. I don't think it is valid to consider the term "feminism" as synonymous with "gender equality" - feminism, as the term suggests, is clearly advocating discrimination in favour of women versus being in opposition to discrimination against either gender. Thus it is expounding a specific partisan point of view, often forcefully and emotively pressed in society, which I think must clearly fall under the T1 speedy deletion category of being divisive, the division being the advocation of discrimination in favour for a particular gender. I would treat a userbox in favour of masculism in an identical manner to one in favour of feminism - as in, I would speedy delete it. I doubt if such a userbox were to exist you would be likely to consider it as being in support of "gender equality". I expect that in response to such reasoning you would likely reply that I have misunderstood the feminist movement; if I may be so presumptious as to preempt that response, regardless of what the Wikipedia article - or any other source - defines feminism as, the intrinsic bias of feminism as being in specific support of discrimination for women's interests as opposed to equality for both genders is not removed regardless of the definition of the movement.


 * Regarding why other POV-related userboxes have not been deleted - it is more that I am yet to sort through the whole load of userboxes and determine which ones should be deleted, which would as I'm sure you can appreciate be a mammoth undertaking, especially since taking the decision to delete userboxes related to a particular subject should not be taken lightly. In response to the examples you gave, a number of those I would agree should indeed be deleted as they clearly propound a POV that is discriminatory towards other users, or otherwise inflammatory. As for the others, such as those relating to religious beliefs and sex, I would consider that since they are not directly propounding potential discrimination against Wikipedia users it would not be reasonable to speedy delete them, although the political and religious userboxes I would like to see deleted entirely (these could not, however, be speedy deleted, as they would not technically fall under the T1 criteria of being divisive or inflammatory).


 * I hope perhaps the above makes my rationale slightly clearer, perhaps, and that you might be able to better see why I made the decision to delete the feminist userboxes. If there's any way I can be of assistance, either in this matter or in the future, please do ask me, either on my talk page or via e-mail; I am at your service. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the very detailed answer. Indeed, you anticipated my response well, and make your points very clear, except for one. Does feminism favour one gender (women) over another (men) in your opinion, or just in the opinion of others?


 * Indeed you seem to be aware of the Wikipedia article (and maybe of other sources) on the feminist movement, and I expect you know as well as me that feminism strives to reach gender equality. I suspect that being a reasonable person, and aware of the situation in the world, you will concede that such a movement is necessary. I won't go through all of the countless examples of situations in which women are discriminated against (salary, finding a job, etc.) as this is not the place, and, again, I imagine that you are aware of them. In any case, you aren't aware of these facts or disagree with the definition of feminism as opposing gender discrimination, this would clearly mean that your deletion of the userboxes were motivated a personal POV.


 * But of course, I assume good faith on your part, and therefore I imagine that the justifications behind feminism aren't an issue, nor are you a victim of the prejudice that the aim of feminism is to favour women over men (for this to be even possible, equality would have to be reached first).


 * So let's move on to your argument that other people see feminism in this way, and that this is precisely why the userbox might appear as divisive and lead to POV bloc voting. It seems to me that deleting the userbox is acknowledging this prejudice. Using a satanist or pagan userbox is also a source of prejudice on the part of the opposers of such movements. Same for queer userboxes. Same for political userboxes. Once again, if you wanted to delete every userbox which could be a source of prejudice on the part of people who do not fully understand or who oppose such movements/beliefs, you would end up deleting all userboxes.


 * Like User:Romarin, I believe that this userbox is actually informative. People who have a prejudice on the feminist movement can click on the link and read about it. Just hushing a belief/movement on the grounds that it is controversial is a threat to diversity of thought, learning, open-mindedness and even individual freedom. As I said, other movements such as satanism or homosexuality have many deep-rooted prejudices working against them, and deleting access to them, indeed hiding them away will not solve the problem. By deleting these userboxes, I think that you are doing great disservice to the movement, to its followers and to the general public. If this line of thought was to be applied world-wide, we would have to hide homosexuality, religion, conflicts (etc.) from the TV news, internet, and streets to avoid controversy.


 * There will always be people who oppose movements/beliefs. Some people believe in modern geocentrism. I imagine that they oppose the belief of heliocentrism, and some of them are most probably biased against its supporters. This is most obviously not a reason to eliminate their userboxes. There are countless similar examples. Just because people oppose feminism (out of ignorance about the motivations of the movement or otherwise) doesn't seem to me to be enough to delete the userboxes. Regards, --IronChris 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * feminism, as the term suggests, is clearly advocating discrimination in favour of women. So in other words, you ignored what feminism is. I can't imagine why people aren't assuming good faith here...I would consider that since they are not directly propounding potential discrimination against Wikipedia users The bible says homosexuals should be put to death. If that is not discriminatory, I don't know what is. Crumbsucker 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NicholasTurnbull, are you going to delete the gay supportive userboxes as well? How about the drug-supportive ones? Anti-religion boxes? If you are, I want to prepare for getting angry next time. Crumbsucker 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think your speedy deletion of Template:user antireligion was not quite thought through. By reading the respective articles, you could have known that this is not quite the same as Template:user atheism. BTW while I am hardly a feminist, I think that deletion of template:user feminism was pretty much over the top, too. I would welcome the restoration of the templates, or as an alternative, the speedy deletion of Template:user christian, User:UBX/muslim, template:user male, and so on, as I do regard them as no less inflamatory. There is no rationale why religious users, or users who think that being male is something to boast with, should be allowed to display their worldview, while others are not. I have to say that imho your very own selection of boxes to delete shows biased views and motivations in itself. -- 790 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, I wanted to let you know I "stole" some of the suggestions you made during a mediation to use at my own mediation that I'm running at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations, so thanks!! Tufflaw 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This userbox was not intended to be divisive or inflammatory. It was intended to be a joke for wikipedians tired of Evolution/Creationism userboxes.-- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 01:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism userboxes undeleted
Dear Romarin: Based on discussion with yourself, User:IronChris and others, I have undeleted the feminism userboxes. I did so primarily because although I do not personally believe that POV userboxes are desirable, there is a legitimate case to be made for a feminism userbox having some value as regards encyclopaedic work for feminism-related articles, so in the interest of assuming good faith unless all similar userboxes are deleted it would not seem justifiable to speedy delete the feminism userboxes. I'm most grateful for the time you took in elaborating to me the specific issues in play relating to this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nicholas, for replacing the feminism userboxes, and for letting me know the reasoning behind your decision. I greatly appreciate the time you took to respond to my arguments, and to those of User:IronChris; I also appreciate the civil manner in which such responses were delivered. It is a difficult task at times to pass judgment on what constitutes as acceptable or unacceptable POV, without falling into the POV trap oneself, and it takes strength to admit when one has made a mistake in that regard. In my opinion, it is always safest to air on the side of access to information, because learning furthers understanding. There are few cases that demonstrate this point as clearly as that of the feminist movement, which is extremely stigmatized, and consistantly boxed into a discourse of divisiveness and extremism, due to a lack of general access to unbiased information. Yes, identifying as a feminist is an expression of a point of view, there's no denying that fact. But identifying as a feminist for the purpose of helping to educate interested others about the reality of a movement that is generally hidden from the public eye is, in my opinion, a necessary step in the long journey toward gender equality. Again, thank you for taking the time to think this matter through, and for your restoration of the feminism userboxes. --Romarin 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't speedy any userboxes until there is policy consensus; as there is not now. TfD nominations are another thing, and right now are not only less divisive than speedying, but also faster (considering that any speedied userbox can, and probably will, be taken to Deletion review/Userbox debates); thank you for restoring the feminist ones.

My interest here is the peace of WP; I have no boxes. Septentrionalis 01:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about a case in the mediation cabal list
Hello, I am a contributing editor who requested mediation from the cabal on the Francis Schuckardt article. I was hoping it would go into mediation before my spring break was over, but mediators appear to be passing over the article and selecting others. I am wondering if you could tell me if there is something innately undesireable about the article or about how I phrased my request for mediation. The party I am having difficulty with is now threatening to have me banned and it is over issues that are in the request for mediation. I appreciate your point of view if you have a chance to reply. Bernie Radecki 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was just touching base. No mediator has stepped forward yet to take the Francis Schuckardt article. Bernie Radecki 01:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antitheist and Template:User antiatheism
Both these templates have been restored per the exception clause of the undeletion policy. Both templates have previously been deleted, claiming a T1 candidacy, but they were part of a series of templates whose deletions were disputed at this DRV debate. That debate overturned the speedies and determined that they were not T1 candidates. If you want these deleted, please bring it to TFD, neither of them have received individual treatment yet. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Block of Grue
Hmmm... Isn't 48 hours a bit too long for a "cool down" penalty? Misza 13 T C 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Following on from the discussion at WP:AN/I, I'd really like you to consider reducing the block to 24 hours. If it's about 'cooling down' then that should usually happen after a good night's sleep, and because of this I believe a block longer thjan 24 hours for the purposes of 'cooling down' looks punitive. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Sjakelle unblocked, Kelly reblocked citing the lack of discussion with you, and as I have attempted to discuss it with you I am unblocking Grue, as I believe consensus is that a 48 hour block for this is excessive. (Copied to Grue's and Kelly's talkpages and WP:AN/I. Please take discussion there to avoid forking this further.) --Sam Blanning (SQUIDWARD!!!)(talk) 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark's talk page being blocked
Is it really a good idea to block Blu's usertalkpage from editing? Isn't his userpage is the only thing he can edit while blocked?-- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 02:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Ikiroid: Yes, a talk page is the only thing a blocked user can edit; you're right, and indeed it is a shame that it was necessary. However, he was basically using the talk page to carry on his prior arguments with his adversaries, which can't possibly be good for either him or his opponents, and after all talk pages aren't meant to be a soapbox to espouse one's point of view. I don't see any further purpose in entertaining the argument there on the talk page, hence I removed it and protected the page. So I personally think it was justified in the same way as bars are in zoological parks - they are there to keep both the inhabitant animals away from the visitors, and the visitors away from the animals. Protecting the talk page thus means people can't goad Blu Aardvark on his talk page while he's blocked, nor can they keep the debate stoked up with him; likewise Blu will no longer have an opportunity to continue his calls of dissatisfaction relating to Wikipedia on his talk page. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I can understand that, it just seemed kind of weird&mdash;you erased his comments and then blocked the page, but I get where you're going now. You had to stop this thing from spinning out of control. It's a shame, really, both Blu and the many arguing against him will keep going in circles with their viewpoints until one of the two sides finally accepts some idea that the other one has, or until arbcom decides one of the two ideas is better. They're all good people, you know, but I guess situations can change attitudes.-- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed message by sockpuppet of banned user User:Blu Aardvark --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He didn't do it to silence Blu, if you read his statement. He did it because the discussion was going in circles, and it was probably further going to damage the reputation of all involved if it continued.-- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearing air
Nicholas, let's just make it clear: I did not reverse the block on Grue because I dislike you as an editor or administrator. In general, I think you are a responsible and good administrator. I unblocked Grue because I thought that a 48 hour block for an isolated incident was excessive. In the case of the religion templates, I undeleted them because a DRV had overwhelmingly voted to restore them and that I therefore thought that deleting them was not in line with the processes we have here. If you are wondering if I have any acrimony against you personally, I assure you that I do not. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have no intention whatsoever of lifting the indefinite block of Blu Aardvark. The policy violation coming from that account indicate an insincere contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Template re-creation problems
Template:User against Iraq war of aggression, which you deleted on 2 April, continues to be recreated. It has been subsequently deleted by two other admins. Is there a way to permanently delete this divisive box, or at the very least take the author aside and explain what "delete" means (along with other important lessons on WP:NOT) ? Nhprman UserLists  21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think there should not be a template for a totally valuable opinion while there are many for others you can start a vote on it. If you think endorsing people who are accused of having raged a war of aggression is less divisive than asking for a trial, ok. It would however be nice to let a vote decide about it. But removing anything from other user's pages is clearly against wikipedia policy. I assume good faith and think you just mistook it because someone had linked the template talk page to the userfied box. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can no longer assume good faith, as you also deleted another page from my user space, and even reverted an edit in the article about the NSDAP, removing factual information:  I am looking forward to your explanation. ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Rognntudjuu: It is not a case of whether or not I believe there should or should not be a template to express what you term a "totally valuable opinion"; I do not doubt that such an opinion is indeed valid to hold, at least to those who agree - it is that Wikipedia is not a blog, and is not Myspace. As such, templates that are inflammatory or divisive are not permitted on Wikipedia, and may be deleted as per the T1 speedy criterion. I cannot possibly see any kind of rational argument to suggest that the template was not divisive; it is clearly expressing a polemic, and partisan, point of view versus a simple statement of user attributes. Wikipedia really isn't the place for political canvassing, and that's why I deleted it. I see no purpose in a vote, as for one Wikipedia is not a democracy as per WP:NOT, and it seems pointless to waste the time of editors on a vote for such a worthless piece of political propaganda when articles could be written - especially when the template is clearly capable of being speedy deleted as per existing speedy deletion policy. I have deleted only one page from your userspace, which was the recreation of the deleted userbox; see criterion G4 in WP:CSD:


 * Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.


 * If you are referring to the other userbox that I deleted, it is because it clearly met the T1 criteria. I don't care whether or not it is a valid point, again; what I care about is that polemic, or otherwise partisan, political points of view really don't belong amongst Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is, after all, not a vehicle for free speech. I reverted the edit from the NSDAP page, yes - I did so after seeing the change, as I have the article on my watchlist - because what you call "factual information" was unsourced and unattributed; please read Cite sources for how claims must be cited on Wikipedia. I would be grateful if you would please focus on the task at hand that one is meant to be doing on Wikipedia - writing an encyclopaedia, and the activities attendant to it - and I might suggest that if you are looking for somewhere to promote your political views, you try a service such as Myspace. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not address my points.
 * 1. Why is it less divisive to endorse a party that is accused of having engaged in crimes than asking for a trial?
 * 2. Why do you remove anything from MY userspace? People are allowed to say they are communists, nazis, gun control opponents/supporters, pedophiles and what not here, why do you censor someone who asks for a trial?
 * I would have thought it was common knowledge that the NSDAP was found a criminal organization. Instead of deleting without comment it you could have asked for a source. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Rognntudjuu: I have in fact addressed the issues your above. Let me reduce my points down, perhaps I was too verbose. In response to 1), the point is irrelevant; the template is clearly polemic and partisan, and clearly falls under being divisive - as it is clearly propounding a division of political opinion, rather than a particular point of view. I don't care, to be honest, what is more or less divisive than other points of view - that is neither here nor there, and indeed to an extent you are begging the question.


 * In response to 2), I'd point out that people are emphatically not allowed to say what they like in userspace. That is a fallacious assumption. People are not allowed to say they are Nazis or paedophiles. Userspace pages are as much under Wikipedia editorial discretion under any other; it is merely we permit tolerance of first-person point of view whilst those pages are not being abused as soapboxes for partisan political ideology. People are not allowed to say what they like on Wikipedia; see WP:NOT a vehicle for free speech. Userspace pages are not the property of Wikipedians; they are the property of the encyclopaedia as a whole. I have "censored" nothing; Wikipedia is not the place to be expounding your political views. I don't care whether people want a trial, or want no trial; it is not germane to the encyclopaedia.


 * As for 3), whether it is "common knowledge" or not makes no difference; it was my opinion it had a POV appearance to it, and should have been sourced. The onus is on editors inserting comment, not those removing it, to provide a source for POV-looking claims. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you say you "don't care, to be honest, what is more or less divisive than other points of view" when you delete one opinion and not the other? The other one is allowed here: template:User republican, and by removing just one what you do is divisive.
 * People do say here that they are pedophiles or gun control supporters/opponents, and there is no way that it should be exactly YOU to decide which opinion needs to be censored.
 * Interesting that facts have POV appearance to you. A user with manners would at leasst have expressed his concerns in some way. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions violate wikipedia policy!
Consensus had been reached to keep Template talk:User independent Iraq. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the result of the discussion seems to have been "no consensus." Nhprman 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a clear majority to keep the template. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Userspace deletion
The speedy deletion criterion you have quoted: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space ..." refutes your argument. Deleted material which has been re-created in userspace (or moved there) is not a candidate for speedy deletion - at least, not as a re-creation. Should User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal be re-created, please bring it to WP:MFD, instead of speedily deleting it again (against the policy). - Mike Rosoft 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is wrong with including, rather than substituting, a user-created page in another user's space? And exactly how would that make it a speedy deletion candidate? (Templates speedy deletion criteria only apply to templates.) And, even if you have a reason not to allow that, why don't you substitute it yourself? (And why would you delete a page because of actions of other users, over which the creator has no control?) - Mike Rosoft 12:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You see, others agree with me that you violated the policy. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Little help
I changed some text and deleted a couple of the more controversial sections on the Wikiethics proposal, with very well detalied edit summaries. Viewable on the history page: User:Rgulerdem placed a vandal warning on my page, and has made many, many statements on the talk page of Wikiethics that seem to violate WP:OWN. Appreciate an admin removing the crap message off my talk instead of me, and some statements to the user in question would be appreciated. - M ask 00:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear User:NicholasTurnbull, I am saddened with your actions. You blocked me and also my talkpage. You deleted my report on vandalism page. If you check the policy, deleting a significant part or the article is also call blanking. 'Editing after discussing' is a standard here and nothing to do with WP:OWN. Do not you think it is better to discuss first? Please see the other admin involved in the issue: he left the same message on both pages at the same tone. Please be more careful when using you previliges. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 03:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry about misinformation, it was not you. My vandalizm report is actually deleted by someone else. Sorry about that again. I do not know who blocked my webpage but I couldn't edit while I was blocked. I will check if someone else did that. I am sorry about saying that you did it without checking carefully. Please accept my apologies for these two mistakes. In regard to reverting the vandalism, I have to say that I will revert it whenever I encounter this kind of behaviour. I am not reverting what I disliked, I am reverting what is unacceptible. I am calling people to discuss first, which is a standard here in wiki. After discussing their ideas, anybody can change the text of course. You should be supporting revertion of vandalism not otherway around, I believe. Sorry again for blaming on you for some wrong-doings you are not related to. Best. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning for blocking a user without legitimation
Your blocking of ROGNNTUDJUU! after you had already been told your deletions were wrong needs to be undone immediately. I wonder how you come to the conclusion he did not help the project as he had many valuable edits in the article space. And this is not on a single admin to decide. De mortuis... 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and need a little advice here
Hello Nicholas. Firstly I want to thank you for restoring the feminist userboxes. I know i'm a bit late at answering, sorry about that. Anyway, I'm glad we could reach an agreement on that.

Right now though I could use some help. A new user, Billcica, has been causing some trouble. He has only been registered for 2 days, and already made a number of unacceptable edits. If you look at his contributions, you'll see that he edited such pages as Feminism, Reproductive rights, Women's rights, Civil Rights Act of 1964, or Human rights, adding blatently POV and sexist comments such as :

"If women have the right to choose, shouldn't men also have the right to choose or at the very least a say in the out come of the women's decision?" ;

"Few people seem to notice but women have far more rights granted to them than men do in the United States. The women's rights movement has managed to push the government of the United States, as well as individual state governments, to pass laws granting rights and "extra" protections to women. These laws allow women to have the right to make decisions that men have no say in when the issues are in a man's life. They also increased the penalty for violence against women while leaving the penalty for violence against men the same. Making the women far more free and protected then the men of the United States." ;

"The right to choose is a right granted only to women while giving men no such right or any recoarse at all. See women's rights for more on rights granted to women and not to men", etc.

He also uploaded and used several copyrighted images, and created a page that I speedied, as it was just an ad for a website (Weekly Musician). Though I can understand that he is new and not aware of Wikipedia policies, he didn't stop at this. Myself, and, ironically, Romarin both wrote to him on his user page to give him some guidelines and explain to him why his modifications had been deleted by various people. In response to this, he wrote on our user pages (instead of the talk pages), calling us hypocrites, biased and narrow-minded, insisting that our reasons for deleting his modifications were not based on facts and just a product of our opinions (even though I deleted nothing, apart from the article I speedied, other people did that before me).

Once again I sent him a message on his talk page, asking him not to vandalize my page, assume good faith, and stop the personal attacks. I believe he did not even read my messages since just a few seconds after I posted my message he cleaned his talk page of all messages, including the welcoming message and the message from a bot asking him not to use copyrighted images!

Please tell me what you think should be done. For my part, repeated POV, sexist and inflammatory posts, vandalism of others' user pages, personal attacks, use of copyrighted material and obliviousness to messages and attempts at dialogue warrant a blockage. But I thought I'd ask you what to do, as you seem to know about this subject. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, --IronChris 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of his most recent additions were to delete parts of the messages on my talk page and do a collage of various sentences by User:Romarin on his talk page, belittling and making fun of her. This is insulting and should not be tolerated. --IronChris 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the block on User:Billcica
Dear Nicholas, I just wanted to thank you for both restoring the posts on User:Billcica's talk page, and for imposing a block on him. I know we have had our differences, but I wanted you to know that I greatly appreciate your prompt help in the problems that User:IronChris and I have been having with this user. Take care, Romarin 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your swift help, Nicholas. I accept your apologies about the userboxes business, don't worry about that. You did it in good faith, and it's this type of discussion that makes Wikipedia such a wonderfully accurate source of information. In fact, I'll add that it's a pleasure to deal with you, and I'm looking forward to future cooperations. Thanks again, have a nice day. --IronChris 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera's WWII refugee policy
Why has my request for Mediation Cabal's attention to the abovementioned been plainly ignored??

I hope it is not because of attempts by Jtdirl, Demiurge, etc. to censor this matter.

Brandubh Blathmac 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis
Do you have any issues with a user:JarlaxleArtemis? He agreed to apologize to you as a condition of being unbanned, but now can't recall you. This may be in regard to something that would have happened back in the fall of last year. The user is trying to fulfill his requirements. If you'd like to see it settled that can happen or you can waive it off. -Will Beback 08:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll pass the message along. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schuckardt mediation case
Hello again, I was just touching base. No mediator has stepped forward yet to take the Francis Schuckardt case in the mediation cabal queue. You had mentioned that perhaps you yourself would have time. I am just raising this on your radar to see if you have time. Bernie Radecki 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Another userbox to delete?
I saw that you deleted Template:user_antiatheism and Template:user_antitheist, but I wonder why you skipped over Template:User_antiatheism2. I'm not sure how it compared to the one you deleted since I didn't see it, but it's certainly divisive and inflamatory -- if somebody made an equivalent userbox stating that Christianity, Islam, etc., made no sense it would be gone in a hearbeat. Note that the userbox originally contained an image of a dunce cap and the text "is just plain stupid" until someone (not the creator) toned it down. 4.89.244.19 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wdefcon
I've speedily restored this template as a seeminly out-of-process deletion. I've noted this on WP:DRV. This template has already surived a TFD discussion. As I put on the DRV page, this is without prejudice for relisting it on WP:TFD. Many users noticed this deletion rapidly and were confused as to where it went. I will not wheel war over this if another admin feels it deserves speedy deletion, but will argue against speedy deletion of it on DRV. — xaosflux  Talk  02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Xaosflux: Ah, certainly, that's fine if you feel it wasn't a satisfactory speedy; actually, I'm surprised to learn anyone still had any interest in it, considering it failed an MfD some time back and apparently hadn't yet been deleted. I deleted it because, well, it looked useless, and had apparently been left "in the lurch" following the MfD. Also I thought there was fairly good consensus, although I might be mistaken, that the more militaristic former trappings of the CVU weren't a good idea. "Defcon" has such a militaristic air to it, and frankly the status hadn't changed for eons. But anyway, I won't touch it again. Thanks for your time in restoring and listing it, btw. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The project page was deleted little opposition, but that template is heavily transcluded and edited practically daily. Thanks for the quick response back. —  xaosflux  Talk  02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

template on WP:TOOLS
I removed the template you added to WP:TOOLS. It was incorrect. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

If you think that, editorially speaking, that link does not belong there, I would most certainly love to hear your justification.--Jimbo Wales 12:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Your comment on Jimbo's talk page
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot relicense the contents of Wikipedia. No matter what arrangements have been made with the Foundation the GFDL would be still apply. Those that made the contributions still hold the copyright to them and have only licensed it to the Foundation under the terms of the GFDL. Of course, this is only speaking in general as some people also license under different terms and some people may not be able to license their contributions because of previous agreements with their employers. There is also the issue that licenses such as the GFDL have yet to be tested in court, but I digress. Kotepho 19:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Pro-Lick
S/he has previously been indefitly blocked for being very disruptive at Abortion, sockpuppeting and asking people to disrupt Wikipedia on another website (see the discussion somewhere at WP:AN/I). She was then unblocked by User:GTBacchus (who had not been involved in until then and was likely unaware of this) on the promise of being good. When she violated 3RR (5 reverts actually) at the exact same article, so I did not so much block her indefinitly as I undid her conditional unblocking. If you feel, after examining this case further, that an indefinite block is unwarranted I would request you to block her for at least one month and leave a comment at WP:ANI. Cheers, —Ruud 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocate required
Hi there, I need an advocate regarding an ArbCom case Requests for arbitration/Aucaman and although I have posted my request at Advocate_Cabal I just wanted to know whether you could help with this case personally or not.

Thanks,  - K a s h  Talk 11:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

McCloy article
Nick -- what is going on re: the McCloy case? Why do you want to remove me? I haven't heard from any of the participants. Sdedeo (tips) 20:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think you got confused: Ellis2ca was the user assigned to the Cuba case; he is also a disputant on the McCloy case, which I am mediating. You meant (I think) to remove Ellis2ca from Cuba, but removed me from Ellis2ca's case by accident. I've assumed this is the case. Sdedeo (tips) 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bogdanov affair
Hi,

tried to fix ambiguous statements in the article and the talk page. Hope this helps. Good luck with Laurence67 if she harasses you. Alain Riazuelo 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merkey
I've indefinitely blocked one or two of the people whose sole purpose for editing Wikipedia appeared to be pestering Merkey and his socks. I'm giving Merkey (now using User:Sint Holo) the benefit of the doubt for now as he seems to be trying to do decent stuff. I'm ignoring that fact that he's been listed as banned in the past. Consequently I've blocked him and Vigilant for only 24 hours for brawling.

I always submit my blocks and unblocks to review, and as you have dealt with this situation in the past I thought you might like to take a look. There is currently a discussion of this near the bottom of WP:AN/I, my edits to it being these:. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)