Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom

Statement by Beno1000
Also in favor of closed proceeding; willing to make private comment to arbcom. Beno1000 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Miltopia
Completely uninvolved.

A private email discussing personal issue is a really crappy reason for nathanr to be banned. Sceptre's done this before. The block also caused him many oppose votes on his latest RfA, if I remember correctly.

That said, I think a lot of pointless drama and unpleasantness can be avoided if "nathanrdotcom" is blocked forever and "Nathan", that is, the man behind the account, is allowed to simply create a new account and edit normally. As in, disassociated with the old identity. Miltopia 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Teke
I echo what Miltopia said above. I am not an involved party, and I will not be contributing evidence. While Wikipedia operates with the (unofficial) policy involved in administrative decisions edit are to take place on-wiki, private correspondence seems to have taken place involved in both imposing and removing the block. This is not an investigation that can be handled without the arbitration committee evaluating and deciding on the evidence. It starts private, it ends private. What I do request is a detailed explaination of what is decided without violating privacy as the acceptance of a "private" discussion will demand the accountability placed on arbitrators. This statement may be applied to the above request concerning the admin IRC channel. Best of it to you all, Teke ( talk ) 05:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by D. Lancaster (not a user)
I'd like to point out that it was one of The Halo's (and Snopake's) siblings who posted NDC's full name, address and phone number on a certain Wikipedia attack site (violating several privacy laws while doing so). In my opinion, NDC's feelings of "an eye for an eye" were well justified. 209.87.224.188 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It actually wasn't posted by myself, or anyone on of my family members, as an ED checkuser (here is a link to how checkuser works on wiki) proved. I am strongly opposed to any and all Wikipedia attack sites, and have never, nor will ever use them. Thε Halo Θ  14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that since I'm not a user, I know nothing about Checkuser is faulty. I'm well aware of how CheckUser works on MediaWiki. 209.87.224.188 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Booshakla
I just wanted to say that I hope this user will continue to be banned from editing. We need to make this site safe for everyone, especially children. Booshakla 18:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the above comment violates AGF, NPA and who knows what else. Secondly, speaking from my own personal knowledge of the user, he's not a threat to anyone unless threatened. Thirdly, such completely groundless judgemental statements aren't helping anyone. At the risk of offending, don't speak like you know the situation inside and out when you don't. //DCL 209.87.224.188 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard and know plenty about the situation. I am happy that the ban was retained and I think WP is now a better place because of it. Booshakla 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Eviction of any wikipedians is tragic, and we should not be proud of it. Maybe you have strong feeling about it but everything has passed, let's all move on. Wooyi 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wooyi
I have neither seen this case before nor I was involved. However, I believe that every case shall be handled openly and not in closed chambers. Arbitration committee is accountable to its action as well, backdoor decisions on a free, open encyclopedia would diminish wiki's credibility. No offense. This is just my personal opinion. Wooyi 20:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is personally identifiable information, and possibly embarassing/humiliating information involved. There's not much need to drag that sort of thing into the open, as the community won't be helped by it. The Wiki won't have any credibility if they can't operate with some discretion. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, private, personal information shall be confidential. However, at least the operators should tell or give a clue on what kind of case it is, and not doing so would only make more people curious. Wooyi 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have informed Jimbo about this, as he might have some good suggestions to it. Wooyi 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful. Jimbo was dragged into this last time, and nothing really happened. &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't know it. I apologize. Wooyi 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh, we AGF, Wooyi. I understand and in many way agree with your concerns. :) -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To the ArbCom
If in anyway information is needed about this case I'm open to questioning. Just email me. I was a partially involved party. ILovePlankton(L—n) 16:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Was...
Was he blocked again just now or was he actually banned? &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note the "Final decision" on the main page. Thatcher131 12:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That was uselessly ambiguous. 68.39.174.238 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's similar to what happened to Tommstien, the A.C. just endorsed the community's block. 68.39.174.238 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck...
What the fuck is this? This is completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Why don't you just ban me while you're at it.  ♥ Fr  ed  il  23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)