User talk:Morven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5

Contents

[edit] MONGO 2 case

So what now...I wholeheartedly agree that a big decrease in drama would be great. But I can't shake these guys lose...my only recourse to get them off my back is if you guys tell them to cease and desist...ban me or ban them...otherwise, I have to abandon my account! I can't twitch without some of these editors running to some noticeboard to cry a river over it. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of wanting to link to websites that attack our contributors, but when someone doesn't treat them like royalty, they come screaming for some kind of sanction to be implemented.[1], [2]...so what do guys such myself and JzG do to shake off these guys? Let them run us off the site? I'm not faulting your decision...it is likely the best one...but what advice can you offer? I am doing what I can to not be baited, but they lay out some really delicious morsels. How many frivolous complaints does a person have to make before they are creating more drama then we really need?--MONGO (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that an arbcom case right now would only give people more scope to be disruptive and would be unsatisfying. However - disruption is disruption, and blockable in serious cases. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I am appalled at your voting statement. As I read it, this amounts to a threat of taking action against people who ask the arbitration committee to do their job! Please clarify exactly what you meant by "if the drama does not stop all involved editors may be subject to sanction". This arbitration request is about getting you to stop the drama, by enforcing the civility policy. --Barberio (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand. I was warning that anyone who thinks that one 'side' is blameless and the other wholly to blame is probably mistaken, given what I'm seeing, and that an arbcom case, if opened, would most likely sanction not only MONGO. Think of it as a final warning and a invitation for everyone involved to look at their behavior and see if they can find ways to disengage and reduce the drama and incivility. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that your reluctance to accept the case is seen as endorsement of the status quo. Most people on the wiki *WANT* both 'sides' of this stupid drama sat down, and firmly told that Civility is not a guideline but a core policy. We *WANT* you to sanction everyone who willfully and regularly breaks this policy! We *WANT* the Arbcom to stop punting this issue in the hope that it'll go away, because it's been a major problem for years now, and rejecting this case will only lead to more 'Drama' from the two warring 'sides'. Accept that because of lax attitudes towards the enforcement of Civility, the dispute resolution system has broken down, and ArbCom intervention is needed to fix it. --Barberio (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you wish to circumvent the 'drama' of a full case, I have made a formal request for clarification, so the arbcom can answer the simple question of "Can 'Standing in the Project' be used to mitigate personal attacks and incivility". You have the opportunity now to put all parties on notice that the NPA and Civility policies are enforceable regardless of someone's popularity or contributions. --Barberio (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Something that really concerns me is this statment, which acknowledges sanctions should most likely be applied:
"that an arbcom case, if opened, would most likely sanction not only MONGO"
If there have been:
  1. Likely violation of wikipedia policy (as Arbcom members have stated), and
  2. There are a lot of editors who want this case to go forward...
  • Why is the Arbcom hesitating to accept this case?
This is the only reason I can personally figure out:
Many members of the Arbitration committee are loathe to upset the community again by sanctioning Mongo further.
I really don't blame the Arbcom for not taking this case. No wikipedian would ever want the same condemnation of the same dozens of powerful wikipedians who condemned the incredibly unpopular Mongo desop.
As I write this, despite the rule violations on all sides, no arbitor seems to want to be the pivotal fourth arbitrator to accept this case.
So like the US Supreme Court often does with incredibly controversial and explosive issues, the arbitration committee may well "punt" by voting to not take this case, and let the "mob" hopefully solve the problem. Jim Wales may simply ban the ED editors. Admins may eventually block or ban both parties, and the Arbcom avoids upsetting influential fellow wikipedians.
Out of courtesy, I want to let you know that I am going to post the last portion of what I wrote here on the Request for Arbitration page, without quoting you. Thanks for listening.
Barberio clearly articulates my views better than I could myself, so I won't say more.Travb (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email delivery failure

PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 <morven@redacted>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table

I have no idea what that means. Do you have another email address I can try? Mine is at gmail.com, the username is coelacan. ··coelacan 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu pending case

I am generally opposed to the communication with Arbitrators outside of the ArbCom pages, but I am merely asking you to read what I posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Advise to ArbCom by Irpen since this message would loose part of its relevance once the case is accepted and the acceptance is pending. So, I am posting this message to all Arbitrators who indicated the interest to this case by casting their votes so far. You do not have to respond if you think that my concerns have no merit. Regards, --Irpen (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your challenge

Taking it on board. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Durova ArbCom

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm ashamed to see your comment

I was far from expecting you to hit the lowest point in the Durova arbitration, but there we go, it's always the unexpected that happens. I'm ashamed to see your comment here. My response doesn't seem to have interested you or any other arbitrator. I have stopped expecting it; all the same, here it is again. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

I answered this in private email to Bishonen, since she's announced a wikibreak; however, putting the gist of the reply here is probably best.
I regret speculating about Giano's motives. I have struck the relevant part on the proposed decision. You were 100% right to call me on that.
I simply did not see your response until you pointed me to it. It was not specifically being ignored, except inasmuch as I hadn't read the talk page at all since I voted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mister GJK

Hey Matt, could you explain this: [3], as I'm trying to review his case and I am finding nothing...unless of course you did a checkuser on him... nat.utoronto 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely banned user Greg Kohs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kyushu J7W Shinden.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kyushu J7W Shinden.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Then, unfortunately, the image will have to be deleted. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No big deal; I'm sure someone can find an image with good attribution. This one was uploaded long before we firmed those things up in policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR ArbCom

I don't see the request as a request for ArbCom to decide what the policy should be written as, but more of a request for ArbCom to evaluate the actions of some editors so that the impasse can be breached either way. As it is, the page/policy is basically an edit-war between Admins, with the protection in place. We normal and established users are being prevented from having any input, either by being ignored or by being locked out of the editing process, through primarily ownership issues. There's so much information available and presented that I think this subtle point is being overlooked in the far broader context. wbfergus Talk 12:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that I would vote to accept a more tightly worded and bounded case. The one presented, though, is way overbroad and I can't see it working out well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank for the further explantion, I will pass it along to COgden. Would this require a new filing or could the existing filing be modified? wbfergus Talk 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Fusion Decision

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is a fundamental feature of the scientific method, since it is the only means of establishing that a claim of evidence is evidence. -- 71.102.174.155 (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tecmobowl RFCU

A RfCU for a suspected Tecmobowl sock has been requested. Blnguyen ran the CU but the previous accounts are stale. Do you by any chance have the data from Tecmobowl-Jmfangio CU that you ran a few months back? Nishkid64 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a small poke to check if you have forgotten or if I missed your reply :) -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jmfangio

Hi. Several months ago, you performed a checkuser that revealed that Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was a reincarnation of the banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). I believe that Mrdrip (talk · contribs), based on editing patterns, is another reincarnation. (He instantly resumed the conflict with Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) that had led to the arbitration.) I requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl, but Blnguyen said that it could not be performed because it was stale and to ask someone who performed the original checkuser if they saved the stats. Do you have whatever data is needed to perform this checkuser? Thanks. --B (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL ... I see Nishkid types faster. than I do. ;) --B (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I'll make a note of that in the RFCU case. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joyeux Noël

The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.
The composer of my favorite Christmas carol.

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

Could you please change the main article's featured article image to Image:Tikse monastery.jpg since this image is clearer, less blurry, more appealing and shows the same subject. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PRR D16, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CBOrgatrope == MyWikiBiz

User:CBOrgatrope was one of a nest of sockpuppets you uncovered in early November - you mentioned that you were pretty sure this was the work of an established sockpuppeteer, but tagged this one as the puppeteer arbitrarily as the CU data did not go farther back. I've uncovered some solid evidence that this was the work of the well-known sockpuppeteer User:MyWikiBiz - the most solid being that one of the puppets' edits was to add this picture of himself to Lake Eola, something he has recently been bragging about on Wikipedia Review. With that, the pattern of editing also meshes with the activity of MyWikiBiz's prior confirmed puppets - the initial edits to an account's userpage; the mocking/impersonation/plays-on-words of various admins; the contribution of articles and images about lakes and other aquatic landmarks. I think the case can be considered solved now :) krimpet✽ 08:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured it quite likely, but decided the case didn't need absolute identification of the sockmaster; the bad behavior was sufficient. Thanks for the further checking, however! Although I do find that persistent sockers get very annoyed when you mis-identify them ... always fun. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would you ever want to deliberately annoy MyWikiBiz? Agitating him seems to bring about the exposure of some of our best admins as embarrassments to the project. Durova pissed off MyWikiBiz, and look what happened to her. JzG pissed off MyWikiBiz, and then MyWikiBiz discovered with Wikiscanner that JzG was semi-anonymously editing all kinds of articles about wet t-shirt contests and porn stars with enormous breast enlargements. I'd give the link to these facts, but I don't want to bring on a BADSITES war. It would seem to me that the best way to deal with MyWikiBiz is to ignore him, not provoke him with deliberately weak identifications of sockpuppets that aren't his. --72.94.148.152 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (signing anonymously, as I don't want anything to do with a backlash from MyWikiBiz or CBOrgatrope)
Ah, you misunderstand. I don't per se want to annoy him; I find it amusing that people who sockpuppet get all offended when the sockmaster is misidentified, given that confusion is their intent. I'd have thought they'd be amused, rather than offended. I'm not necessarily saying that MyWikiBiz cares; saying that some sockmasters have been offended.
Also, one must note that Durova's errors were unforced, and JzG doesn't appear to be "harmed" by any allegations about what he may have been doing while logged out, true or not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also amused by the high likelihood that 72.94.148.152 is MyWikiBiz himself, talking about himself in the third person. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Brown, Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you ever considered the further possibility that, if you are wrong, then you are doing an injustice to innocent persons by making these assertions of identity? Have you ever considered the consequent possibility that, if you are wrong, then it is you, My Friend, who are the harasser? Masked And Anonymous (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that a certain individual behind the blocked account MyWikiBiz and others has absolutely, certainly created a number of ban-evading accounts on Wikipedia, I don't see that much injustice is being done. I am only accusing that individual of what they have done and, I seem to remember, what they've admitted - unless this person is now claiming to have never done so. (Amusingly, while using another created identity).
It would do you well to stop doing this whole but-what-if-it-wasn't-me game. It's more pathetic than clever, and should be beneath you; that it isn't is rather disappointing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK article

Updated DYK query On 1 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PRR E6, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work. Gimmetrow 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EMD 511.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EMD 511.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have mail

Please check your email. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of Jayjg

Morven, please see [4]. There is a significant issue to be addressed here which I'm currently documenting in evidence for the arbitration workshop. If Jayjg's conduct is to be the subject of review in the arbitration, it's only fair to include him in the list of parties. (And given that the page states "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case", are you seeking to become a party?). Cla68 has already asked the clerk to rule on this - please leave the page as it was and let the clerk decide. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you or Cla68 thinks Jay should be a party, please provide evidence and the arbitrators will decide. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
From what I read on the arbitration request for this case, and in some discussion since, I think you're going to see some evidence of Jayjg's involvement. If not, then I was wrong. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I didn't think it was the arbitrators' job to decide who to name as being parties - only who to sanction. The instructions at WP:RFAr#Requesting arbitration state "Fill in the names of the involved parties" and are clearly directed at the initiating parties, not the arbitrators or clerks. There's no provision for third parties to remove names (unless, I suppose, it's a really frivolous listing - which this plainly is not). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
One question Matthew, is Jayjg still on the ArbCom's private mailing list? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The list of members of the arbcom mailing list is always available at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I see that Jayjg is on the ArbCom mailing list. Well, another question, if any evidence is presented in this case against Jayjg (or anyone else for that matter who is a current ArbCom mailing list member), will he be removed from the mailing list at least until the case is closed? Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No. We have never removed a list member because they are involved in a case and do not intend to change this. We do expect a list member involved in a case, or an arbitrator recused on a case, to not involve themselves in discussions of the case on-list and interact with the sitting arbitrators on that case only in the manner with which other parties to the case can. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, and I understand that most, if not all of the current arbitrators desire that former arbitrators be allowed to remain on the list and take part in ongoing ArbCom discussion as appropriate. The problem is that once an arbitrator becomes a former arbitrator, he/she supposedly become a regular editor again, which means that he/she should be as equally subject to the administrative disciplines and corrective actions issued by the ArbCom and anyone else. If they, however, still have access to the "inner workings" of the ArbCom committee, it gives an appearance of special treatment. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Automobiles

Morven, can you help me with the Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Spirit articles?? I'm looking at working these up to good article status, and I need all the help I can get.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOR block of 134.114.27.79

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 134.114.27.79, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQLQuery me! 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! :) SQLQuery me! 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScienceApologist sockpuppets

User:ScienceApologist has recently deleted the sockpuppet category template from the talk pages of his sockpuppets. [6] [7] [8] [9] Part of the template does say "do not delete". I'm not sure where this should be reported, but since you were the admin who placed them, I thought perhaps you should be informed. Dlabtot (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So, should the template be changed, then, if it's ok for the sockmaster to remove it? Dlabtot (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your willingness to acknowledge and respond to my questions. This should be a good example to everyone for illustrating why Wikipedia works as it does. Dlabtot (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland RfC

Regarding your comments on the Mantanmoreland RfC, I'm not sure you understand that there is in fact an ongoing dispute regarding Mantanmoreland's possible use of multiple accounts to double-vote and feign a larger consensus - his conduct is being called into question. See User:SirFozzie/Investigation#Double !Votes and Dual ArbCom discussion. krimpet✽ 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the RFC needs to include the actual accusations and be certified by the people actually in a dispute with him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
They are involved (Durova not that much, but SirFozzie definitely so) - they and others have tried to mediate an peaceful end to his apparent sockpuppetry, but he hasn't cooperated, so they brought it to Requests for Comment, where the community can give their input - the intended purpose of RfC. If RfC is not the right forum for this, then what is? krimpet✽ 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this question I see what you mean. However, Cla68 and SirFozzie have certainly had disputes with these purported sock puppeteers. Cla68, at least, has called for sanctions. I think that Mantanmoreland would prefer not to be sanctioned. Hence, a user dispute. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal from Mantanmoreland ArbCom case

Based on your comments here [10] I'm formally requesting that you recuse yourself from this ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Furthermore, Mr. Bagley is not a part of that arbitration, so my personal feelings about him are not relevant; even if he was, I am permitted to have personal opinions about him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have already decided what the scope of this case is, then your opinion is relevant and prejudicial. I repeat, please recuse yourself. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Again; no, thanks. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/e 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response on that page. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gone until Tuesday

I'm at a convention until Tuesday, so anything you write to me from now on may not be read until then. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McKeen

Please read my note here. • Freechild'sup? 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read over your talk page and see that you have repeated issues with civility and will not attempt to work with you on that page. Good luck with your efforts. • Freechild'sup? 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injunction voting

Just letting you know that the injunction you voted on here had already been implemented after four net votes. If this was a case of "being on the record", my apologies; just thought you may have missed the enactment. Daniel (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to draw these maps that you have done?

Hi, HOw can I draw maps like what you done for example here: [11] I would appricite hint or help on how to do them.

thanks. Farmanesh (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know; that image was incorrectly attributed on Commons to me, but was actually done by the similarly named User:Morwen. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:British Rail Type 4

A tag has been placed on Template:British Rail Type 4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia initialisms

Avoid using Wikipedia initialisms in running text? Ok, I'll try. No more WP:WI (no disrespect to Wisconsians intended) ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC) PS. The actual page the initialism points to doesn't have the initialism! Its a minefield out there!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppets and block of User:Belicia

Hi Morven,

I noticed you blocked Belicia (talk · contribs · logs · block log) as a sockpuppet of Stinging P (talk · contribs · logs · block log), noting a connection to Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · logs · block log) in the block summary. User:Wikidemo had raised the Stinging P suspicion on my talk page as part of working through Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove, so I wanted to ask first if you think they are directly related (i.e. whether Stinging is a sock of Boomgaylove or simply involved in the general disruption) and secondly your opinion on taking the whole thing to WP:RFCU. Thanks! --jonny-mt 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stinging P/Belicia etc. appear to be in a different geographical location to Boomgaylove. I suspect either collusion offsite or use of hacked systems, with the first more likely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, Icamepica (talk · contribs · logs · block log) says that "another editor" suggested he/she should nominate Acorn, Oakland, California for deletion. However, I could not find any onwiki discussion to that effect. Boomgaylove (talk · contribs · logs · block log) admitted to meatpuppetry. However, it seems much more likely that boomgaylove and icampica are the same person. I don't have any good tools but I think one can connect the dots through Cholga (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and 24.180.37.2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log).Wikidemo (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's next on this one? I see there are some seemingly confirmed sockpuppet accounts as yet unblocked in the sock puppet report, including Icamepica. How were you confirming identities? Was it some kind of checkuser, or should we request/run one at this point? Forgive me if that's a silly question, I'm not very familiar with this process. There's some ongoing, and somewhat unpleasant contention on the various articles, and it would sure help if I knew that the people still editing are operating in good faith and not sockpuppets. Wikidemo (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been using checkuser and other things. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Boomgaylove

Your most recent report reflects that Umiumitooti (talk · contribs) = Icamepica (talk · contribs) = Qrc2006 (talk · contribs) = Cholga (talk · contribs) are confirmed to be connected. Qrc2006 and Cholga, in particularly Cholga, is still an active contributor. Shouldn't at least 3 of those (or all 4 if this is serious abuse), be indefinetly blocked, or are you waiting until the conclusion of the case? — Save_Us † 09:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PHG

Hi Morven. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [12]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [13]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denver Public Library images

Category:Denver Public Library images - do you know how many images were in there? I noted during a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance, that Image:Ashcroft hotel.jpg had been tagged for deletion. It did eventually get deleted, despite being one of those "historic" images that I plead with people to treat with more care than the contemporary pics of popular culture. Now I'm worried that more than just that image got deleted. Can you help? Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know; I don't even have any notes about what I uploaded, though of course I'd be notified. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

What kind of a punishment would you recommends should I dare mediate a dispute? Which 'real problems' are we talking about? What have I done that warrants such extreme measures? Why should I be not given a tiny fraction of the courtesy Davenbelle or even his sockpuppet Moby Dick was given?

You talk in a plural tone on your response to my appeal. What restrictions are we talking about? Just to make sure we are talking about the same thing...

Please clarify these points. Thanks.

-- Cat chi? 00:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Will you not reply at all? -- Cat chi? 12:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification in IRC case

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

[edit] Time for an arbitration on Freyfaxi?

I'm seriously debating whether to start an ArbCom case on Freyfaxi (talk · contribs). He's the original author of the Edward McSweegan article, and it was his editing of it that got Dr. McSweegan so upset. A quick perusal of his editing history shows that his style borders on tendentiousness regarding Lyme disease-related topics. On the surface, the fact that his editing has resulted in TWO complaints about a BLP would seem to merit going straight to arbitration--but he hasn't edited since late February? What do you make of it? I wanted to bounce it off you before filing. Blueboy96 19:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Arbcom aren't generally in the business of fixing things that aren't current and ongoing problems. I'd be certainly willing to take it up should he start editing again, or indeed if other people continue disruptiveness and tendentiousness on these articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:B-66.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B-66.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

Hi Morven. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Morven,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure

Dear Morven, while I realize the case is somewhat old, I noticed that you indicated "numerous IP edits" in your results and I was curious if those IPs were blocked or tagged as suspected socks? I ask, because looking through a number of old AfDs (I am trying to get a sense of just how many were disrupted by sockpuppetry), I noticed quite a few with IP edits expressing views incredibly similar to Eyrian's, including the following:

Were these his IPs? And if so, should they be tagged as suspected or confirmed socks? I also noticed that one of the accounts you indicated as confirmed (THX1337) was also not blocked or tagged as a sock. Thank you for your time and efforts! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal topic ban of Thomas Basboll

While I respectfully disagree with you where you said "I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them", I don't see any reasoning or basis for it. Would request you to explain why or how those actions are in line with the decision. I have pointed out in my statement why I don't think so, in case you can pinpoint my misunderstanding of the situation. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cap Arcona

You can see the American photos, if you pay.(86.64.182.240 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:ALCO 0900.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ALCO 0900.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ALCO 0900.jpg

Image:ALCO 0900.jpg was just tagged and I was notified by FairUseBot despite it having a human-readable fair use rationale that links to the specific article it is used in. Is it now insisting that rationales must be templated or they're not valid? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The bot couldn't care less about the use of templates. It's complaining about the lack of a link to List of ALCO diesel locomotives. You're the second person to have difficulties with this -- is the wording of the template really that unclear? --Carnildo (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah! The bot's message on the uploader's talk page isn't making it clear that only ONE of the uses of the image is the problem. Quite often this is a usage added by someone else. Such talkpage messages panic image uploaders into thinking that the image is actually up for deletion, and that someone has added another pointless hoop to jump through for fair-use images in the hope that a percentage of the uploaders won't respond within a week.
In this case, I uploaded the image for ALCO HH series and didn't know that someone had used it elsewhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

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

[edit] VigilancePrime

Greetings. My experience so far has been that inquiring about these off-Wiki ArbCom bans is a fruitless enterprise. I can forward tyou my previous emails on the subject if you'd liek to see them. Is there anything you can suggest I do to be heard on these issues? --SSBohio 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly forward us those emails and they will be read. The likelihood of your changing our minds on this is possibly less, however. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that? ArbCom has, presumably, only heard from one side of the debate, and possibly also from the perpetrator. Surely, there's something of the other side to consider. Here are the issues I see. I've attempted to avoid much specific mention of VP's case, in deference to ArbCom. My worries are mainly procedural, rather than about any specific case.
  • How does doing this via an opaque process benefit the community or the encyclopedia?
  • If my emailing on this topic will have no effect, then isn't that the same as my not emailing at all? Why accept input at all in these cases?
  • There's no clear criteria as to what one can or cannot say to suddenly find themselves locked out without further ado. It's as though we could be ticketed for parking violations, but there were no signs posted to inform us of the regulations.
  • If the criterion were actual advocacy of pedophilia, that would be understandable, but this seems to be an application of a much broader rule. How am I supposed to ensure my safety when I can't reliably figure out what I can and cannot say?
  • VP is annoying at times, hilarious at others, but he provides a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He's not a trench-coated figure lurking in the dark going after our kids. I cling vainly to the notion that one would have to actually do something wrong to get banned. Users like this one, and others, simply haven't done that.
  • This is too reminiscent for me of what homosexuals (like me) continue to experience. "You crossed the line." // "Where's the line?" // "Can't tell you." I don't (by any means) compare homosexuality to pedophilia, but
  • If PPAs want to advocate for their cause, we're equipped to handle them. Could they convince anyone that they're right, even if we let them participate? I think not.
  • If someone just said: "He was banned because he did X or said Y," then I'd have some idea why we're doing this. This guy made a userbox in his userspace. Imagine the chilling effect on someone who wants to contribute to mainspace. --SSBohio 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we've heard from people from all sides of the debate at some length. This is why you're unlikely to change our minds much - not because we're not listening, but because it's likely we've heard the argument before.
In my opinion, what VigilancePrime was doing was deliberately testing the boundaries. That isn't acceptable. There are not hard and fast rules about what's acceptable here entirely because of the tendency to push the limits, lawyer the rules, and treat any explicit restrictions as mere obstacles to work around. In this case, creating pro-pedophilia userboxes has been a cause for blocks in the past; VigilancePrime was aware of that, I'm sure. We aren't going to be accepting arguments that he was only joking, or that he worded it ambiguously so he shouldn't be blocked, etc. The message is that we will not tolerate this, and I consider everyone adequately warned.
Pro-pedophilia advocates or apologists do constantly attempt to make Wikipedia's articles more favorable to their cause. Our articles on such topics have been frequently made to espouse views out of all proportion to their actual support. This isn't just a theoretical problem. A small group of people, if organized and motivated, can easily manage a local majority on an article and skew its content. We have adopted a policy of little tolerance for such behavior on these articles, and will continue to block people who behave in ways that could readily be construed as activism in favor of pedophiles, broadly defined. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm grateful to you for being the first person to actually explain how this process works, and what constitutes a triggerpoint for enforcement. I've sent several emails to other Arbs and never got an answer at all approaching the thoroughness and forthright quality of yours. My concern is still there, but I feel more assured that the decision was taken after careful deliberation and in consultation with others.
In the end, I think it comes down to a balancing test: Those extreme in their opposition to pedophilia may not be fully committed to a neutral point of view in articles, but the direction they're pushing is extremely unlikely to bring the project into disrepute. On the other hand, the pro-pedophile people are placing a thumb on the other side of the scale, and a Wikipedia seen as tolerant or even ambivalent toward pedophilia would suffer greatly in public opinion.
I've jokingly referred to myself as being qualified as a UN peacekeeper, as I've been shelled by both sides at various times.  :-) I just want the encyclopedia to present the facts neutrally. I have faith that the reader is smart enough to think that something's wrong with an adult's sexual "relationship" with a small child.
I'm still pretty firmly committed to open processes and reliance on the "wiki way" to correct biases. I don't even have a problem with pedophiles identifying themselves as such. If nothing else, it's like the labelling on food: what you're getting is self-identified. At the same time, I'm not blind as to the broader implications of how we respond to pro-pedophile editing. It's better for our protection to ban the editors, but I believe it's bnetter for building an encyclopedia if we concern ourselves with the edits rather than the editors.
Thanks for listening to my fears & concerns. I hope you will commend them to ArbCom's attention. Separately, I'll email you specifically about VP, A.Z., and any other bans that trouble me. I hate to see us throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as I fear is happening here. Thanks again. --SSBohio 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afrocentrism

I happened to look at this today and am appalled at what some editors are adding. They are way off topic and obnoxious. The article is already on probation, probably because of people like the ones who added under "Semantics" on the Talk page. Please review.--Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyrian checkuser note

Dear Morven, please see this thread. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Actually a formal checkuser request has been made by another editor at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian. Considering that you did the first checkuser, if you still have the results, it may worth commenting there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking to see if I have anything. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is an update - Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eyrian#Eyrian, which Thatcher thinks needs someone who did the original checkuser. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed decision - Tango

Just wondering if you'll be voting on this case, as one of the arbitrators who suggested accepting it if there was a pattern? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't create task lists for me on my talk page, thanks. I will complete voting on this case within the next few days. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Accepted with thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
And now voted on everything, I think. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all done. :) :) Thank you very much. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I looked properly - there's one other thing. Your votes for remedy 1 and 1.1 indicate "Third choice" - I think one of them was meant to be "Second choice"? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was indeed. Thank you! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests page

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting and the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email question

Dear Morven, you have mail.  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September_11_conspiracy_theories Arbcom clarification

Regarding the evidence I provided here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Statement_by_User:Inclusionist

You wrote: "I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them."

If I was a new user to wikipedia, I would be flabbergasted by the complete disregard for rules and guidelines your sentence shows. But since I have edited here for years I am jadded and not surprised by hypocrisy and the selective enforcement of the rules, no matter how flagrant. I have seen time and again how editors selectively follow the rules as it suits them. The only thing unique here is this is just the first time I have seen an Arbcom do it.

I quote the Arbcom:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
"For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

How in the world is Raul not an involved editor? How can you possibly twist the words of this arbcom to justify Raul's actions? The definition game "uninvolved" doesn't really mean "uninvolved". What a f***ing joke.

Is it any wonder that so many editors have left wikipedia in pure disgust, because they feel that their are cabals which stick together and that the rules don't apply to admins like they apply to regular users?

I would hazard to guess that you would fully condone JzG's telling editors to fuck off and William Connolley booting editors and protecting pages that he is in an edit war with. My lord, the hypocrisy and corrupt behavior on wikipedia.

Inclusionist (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EMD GM10B / EMD GM6B

These two pages you created seem very much alike - I don't know enough about the prototypes to write much about how they differ, but a quick search suggests the 10Bs were numbered 1976 / 4976 and 1977. And BC Rail had GF6C locos - were these related somehow? Wongm (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There was only one each of the GM10B and GM6C; they looked somewhat alike, but the former was B-B-B, contained a high proportion of Swedish ASEA design and technology, and was designed for high-speed freight, while the latter was C-C with (fairly close to regular) HTC trucks and traction motors, and designed for lower-speed drag freight. The numbers in the designations are the horsepower in thousands.
The GF6C locomotives of BCR were pretty close to the GM6C technologically although using a wide-nose cab. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I have clarified the page. You might want to archiving this talk page though - it's kinda long. Wongm (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, I started those pages but haven't yet finished putting in all the info. Yeah, it's getting time to archive this mess again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You For You Refrain

Thank You for your recent edit. Sicerely Hellboy2hell (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2

Hello; as you added your comment without a rationale, I wondered if you would be willing to expand on your vote to have User:Kww restricted in this case, given that practically every statement on the case, by editors on both "sides" and those that are uninvolved, puts forward the opinion that such a restriction would be unhelpful? Thanks, Black Kite 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reconsidering. Black Kite 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but if you were so quick to support that ban on Kww and then change your mind, it makes me wonder if this case is getting any real attention. I'd also like to plead with you to actually fulfill our request and clarify the restrictions, wether or not TTN gets a full topical ban. My full comments are at WP:RFAR#Second Statement by User:Ned Scott, but I wanted to give an extra prodding to this request. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed decision - Footnoted Quotes

Please note that 3 arbitrators have expressed a desire to move finding 2.1 to the principles; the remainder (including yourself) have not commented yet. Once this is resolved, and 1 more vote is cast in favour of it, the case should be ready to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unertow confusion

Hi Morven, can you explain to me why this editor's user page had been deleted when the editor is not blocked or banned? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

On the user's request. He can undelete it if he wishes. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)