User talk:Sam Korn/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
 Start a new talk topic.

This may sound odd, but I do not delete personal attacks on my user page, and I respectfully request that others do the same, if they felt otherwise moved. I may well indefinitely block anyone who places a "smile" (or anything similarly inane) on this page.

[edit] Archives

Yes, my archiving is very erratic and rare.

Current #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

Contents

I wanted to get you something to replace the delicious meatball for what all you've done to help me, but I'm not sure exactly sure what all youve done, so I'll leave this barnstar I am no lnoger using, and you can fill it in with whatever is appropriate on how you helped me...thanks pickelbarrel 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I hereby award User:Pickelbarrel the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for his work on articles pertaining to Panty Waste. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I hereby award User:Pickelbarrel the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for his work on articles pertaining to Panty Waste. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my status

I was (frivolously) blocked recently by Radiant!, who I thought was given a pretty clear explanation by you and other Arbitrators on WP:RFAr#Netoholic. Can you please clarify additionally, and perhaps add a notice to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2. Thanks very much. -- Netoholic @ 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

I want to present this award to you for doing everything possible to help end the horrible and nasty oppinion that dan has for some mebers of wikipedia. For your continued efforts though mail or discussion pages in settling a hostile personality I present you with a delicious meatball award thanks pickelbarrel 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you had a chance to talk to Dan yet?

It seems some administrators are getting abit upset at me not having done enough work on articles latel, but I have been triing to wait for Dan to let me know which one he would like help with, and Im afraid he wont do that until you speek to him...thanks pickelbarrel the giant ASSHOLE 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you leave Dan alone and get on with writing whatever article comes to mind. You may want to start here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Woah slow down there Kemosabi. Remeber Im still only an administrator in training . Lets start a little slower and stretch the old mental wheels bofore I go jumping into that one okay. I understand your suggestion, and am reminded of a saying that my father instilled in me, "If you have done everything in your power to befreind someone, and they have failed to respond, then it is time to invoke the power of others" I try to live my life by this creed, and am asking (again) for your help in this regard. If after that he still doesnt respond Ill know Ive done everything in my power AND used the help of others...also I have a question for you about this capital letter thing that keeps happening to me, but Ill wait until it happens again. Thanking you in advance...Jake
Well, my opinion on that would be to understand when you are not going to succeed in befriending someone. Much as it may be desirable, sometimes it's best to to try to do things where you aren't going to succeed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Nobody can be standoffish for ever...at SOME point he will give in at least a little, and Im sure I can win him over as a freind. Did you realize that Administrator UncleG an I had started out on opposing sides of an argument(an argument I ultimately "won" ha ha ha). Now he is my mentor

Im just asking for you to give him the "push" he may need to start things over. Oh did you notice Im makeing the letters dark to highlight points...I finally figured out ho wto do that...I wont need to capitalize anymore(unless my nephews come over) thanks for all your help pickelbarrel 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to discuss this

Reposting: "Sam, "sympathy for Kelly" is one among many reasons that I have commented on this much. I just find it ludicrous that anyone would say such an incredibly tactless thing at this moment, and ludicrous that you'd defend it by insulting the "community hardly worthy of its name." I have never in my entire life told anyone to "shut the fuck up", and I have never seen an adult type such before while not in an altered state. It is plainly unacceptable from any adult in any serious circumstance. Xoloz 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)"

With respect, if I may use a Gerardism here, I think you need some "clue-batting". "Shut the fuck up" is not language I am ever prepared to let pass from an adult without comment. Sympathy or no, that is a textbook case of NPA, and cannot be tolerated. I assure you, I am as deeply frustrated as anyone over Ms. Martin and Co., and have reduced my involvement with WP as a result. I am disappointed and angry at what seems to be widespread lack of judgment in the running of this place; yet, I (and every other person involved) has refrained from coarse insults of the base kind Ms. Martin employed. To suggest I (or the community) are wrong, "without sympathy", or "not worthy", because we demand conformity with basic civilized norms is absolutely incredible. I am very saddened to see you so irrationally act. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have responded briefly to what I think are your main concerns back on the clerk talk page. This is all a bit of a misunderstanding. Most of the community most certainly does deserve the name. I am very proud of much of what Wikipedia's users do. However, there is a section, identifiable by its hatred of Kelly, that does not deserve the name "community".
As to the sympathy point: if you felt sympathetic for Kelly's situation, you would have realised that that was most certainly not the point at which to make that statement. I can understand your emotion - and I apologise if I sounded brusque or rude as that was not my intention - but I must question your judgment in this matter. Actually, it's not NPA, it's civility, but I've seen worse (degree of how bad an incivility is can be judged by its context). Kelly felt justifiably hurt at how many users rejected all the good work she has done. Do you blame her being upset? Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate, at least, the tone you've taken here. I consider "shut the fuck up" to be a personal attack directed at the person told to shut up (in this case, Radiant, a user for whom I have the highest respect.) I do not hate hate Ms. Martin, or anyone else, and I don't any users who do, though there may be a few trolls out there. Those of us who strongly opposed her did so because we objected to certain decisions she made; I, for one, would have supported her in anything if I had ever seen her apologize with humility, which I have not. You are free to despise certain sections of the community that you think "hate" her, but I am not among these, and I don't know anyone who is. Since I don't know anyone to whom your comment refers (or could refer, as you've now qualified it), misunderstanding of the comment was very easy.
I do not blame Ms. Martin for being upset. I hope she stays with us. Her time here will be much happier, and her relations better, if she learns to wait before typing. If she can forget civility at such a crucial moment, I do think a reminder is in order, and I gave one.
On the other hand, I didn't mean to seem cruel, and I have no interest in "revenge" (nor any reason for it -- Ms. Martin never "hurt" me, she just made some very poor choices.) I am sorry if my comment sounded cruel. Understand, please: I believe in giving people many chances to show good character, but I demand some sign of improvement. Just today, I was very happy to see Mr. Sidaway compromise over his latest conduct, have commended him, and look forward to working with him, since it seems we agree on a policy issue for once. In contrast, to see Ms. Martin "snap" at Radiant in that manner was disheartening: I commented because I hoped she might yet begin to understand why some of us criticize her choices as we do. I don't regret commenting, although I am open to any suggestions you might have as to how I might have phrased myself differently. One of my one flaws is that I am quite formal here, as I am in all written communication, and might well sound more harsh than I intended, or than is warranted. In any event, I look forward to further discussion with you. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, I was very definitely not accusing you of being in the persecuting group. My only response that I can usefully give to your statement is "sometimes it's better to be silent". Yes, Kelly did swear, and that is generally frowned upon. However, she was very clearly very upset, and it is often better to wait until someone is not in an emotional state before rebuking them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that's true. I have no doubt that Ms. Martin probably reacted angrily when reading my comment. Sometimes, though, an emotional moment presents an opportunity; resent it however she might, Ms. Martin is likely to remember what I said. Maybe, next time she is similarly emotional, thinking of my rebuke, she'll be more careful. If she manages to improve her self-control as a result, I'm willing to bear her resentment. It is probably also worth mentioning that, being human, I have my own biases. I would have been less likely to respond if Radiant had not been the target of the offending remark. As you probably know, besides my admiration for him, he has also taken a fair amount of heat over these disputes, and I might be quick to "stand up" in his defense.
This I will say: whoever these people are who just "hate" Ms. Martin, if I can be of help in calming them (or "cluebatting" them, if necessary), let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I regret now that I started this conversation. The best way to deal with idiots is to ignore them, and I am sorry that I have not. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Expert-Written"

Sam,

Are the "experts" a group of software writers? I'm honestly not sure, since I wasn't around in the original days of Wikipedia so I assumed "expert-written" was meant to mean "expertly written", as in, software that has been created by experts in their fields. Is that what you meant? I wasn't sure. FedEx Pope 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nupedia was written by experts, in a very closed and hierarchical way. It failed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Haha nevermind, sorry. I just read the Nupedia article before I asked that question. For some reason it didn't occur to me that "expertly written" would not be proper in this case. I had assumed (incorrectly) that the "writing" of Nupedia referrred to by the Wikipedia article had been intended to mean the writing of the software, instead of meaning the writing of the articles. Thanks. FedEx Pope 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User admins ignoring policy

Sorry. I did not intend to return the link to Kelly Martin's discussion, I just intended to return the template back to the former layout, as the layout restored "from memory" was completely wrong. I must have just clicked on the wrong date to refer back to. I did not intend to re-instate the link, it was just a careless mistake - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 13:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CVU logos

Why are you opposing the CVU logos? apears on almost every userpage, does that mean foundation supports every userpage? I dont quite understand. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose them for two main reasons. 1) They contravene the Foundation's visual identity guidelines. 2) They falsely imply the CVU is in some way Foundation-supported. I know that is explicitly denied lower down, but the size of the logos and their prominence at the top of the page (and the fact that the disclaimer is fairly low down the page and many will skim-read it) do make the suggestion hard to avoid. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You should know I have been dealing with senseless complaints from people such as kim_ complaining about the restrictions imposed on the IRC channel to restrict access to the bot (due to malicious people impostering people). After I lifted the restrictions completely ignoting concensus established among people in the channel he did NOT even join the chan
With such people I only get stressed and day by day spend more time dealing with "complaints", I have quit editing wikipedia mostly and left RC patroling completely so as to deal with constant complaints. What stuff complains about is how "CVU" looks. All cosmetics such as the logos copyrihts. People at CVU have been "under attack" of complaints about CVU cosmetics for ages now and are distracted from focusing on fighting vandalism in order to defend themselves/CVU.
Lets assume your claim is correct that CVU logo violatis wikipedias copyrights on wikipedia, regardless of the boards permision. It is not like wikipedia is going to sue wikipedia for copyrights. Can you please spend time pursuing copyright violations on wikipedia aside from the CVU logos. There are maybe thousands of images/pages that should be deleted because they are violating non wikipedia copyrights. CVU and its members are constantly under fire by people who oppose CVU. They have their reasons, some do it just to annoy me (I am not remotely suggesting you are trying to annoy me).
You may ask "Why is the CVU's logo so important?" and there isnt an easy answer to that. Many of the people discussing want to get rid of the image (perhaps primarily to satisfy "copyright paranoia" of people such as yourself but thats my POV). For me CVU logo is one of my rare creations. I also like the image with the wikimedia logo on it.
About your points:
  1. Board was fine with the image. Can I have a link to these guidelines so I can discuss the matter better.
  2. I'd like to inquire what part of the logo implies "foundation support" as I do not see how thats possible.
    • If it is wikipedia logo warranting foundation support, that would mean the foundation is supporting every place the wikimedia logo apears on.
    • If it is the text, well Image:Wikimedia.png apears on almost every userpage with the words "Wikimedia foundation" and has the wikimedia logo. It is possible to falsely imply foundation support from any image if you look hard enough.
Unlike other people you are civil while talking to me, least I can do is respond back in a civil tone. If for any reason above stuff was not civil please accept my apologies.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Foundation's visual identity guidelines are at [1]. My contention in particular is that the position contravenes the "Placement" section. Note that Anthere explicitly denies that there is Foundation permission given. I shall dig up the links to the Foundation-l archives and answer your other points when I'm not feeling so ill. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm so the coments I got on my talk page giving me permision to use the image is a lie? [2] link is from image description. There was no such thing as "board aproval" back then but there were also no objections. Now, if the board complains about the image we will deal with it. You are not the board and please let the board deal with such issues. I encourge you to use your time more effectively. However if you really like we can discuss the image based on the "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines". Please however do not involve the mailing list and rest of wikipedia for this trivial matter that can be handled effectively without the ruckus. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The colored Wikimedia logo should always be used on a white or very light gray background (max. 15% black), never on a colored background.
  • The logo should not be turned around or distorted
The cvu logo qualifies to above entries as far as I care aside from maybe the "very light gray background (max. 15% black)" bit. There may be some argument there but at the moment no such argument exists. That is easy to fix by removing the black triangles behind the wikimedia logo and would make the image not so cool. Is there anything else subject to copyright discussion?. Note that "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines" is a gudeline not a policy. I do not think it is absolutely necesary to follow guidelines letter by letter. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate line is The logo should always be surrounded by margins of at least the size of the red circle's diameter For now, to bed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes and that one is met. There is enough margin for that IIRC. Are you suggesting that the wikimedia logo be made smaller? That can be done... (tho I dont have the photoshop skilz. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to go through this point by point.

  1. Anthere's permission clearly applied only to the bot. here is Anthere's Foundation-l post on the matter. I think that speaks for itself.
  2. A logo that includes "Counter Vandalism Unit - Wikimedia Foundation" on it clearly implies some link between the two. No amount of disclaimers is going to change that.
  3. The VIG are important, and I think it's hard to argue that they are not being contravened at least in spirit here. You cite IAR. If you need to cite it, it probably doesn't apply.
  4. I have never thought it a good idea to say "we're not going to get in trouble over this, so let's not worry about it". We are trying to build a free project, not a project that only works for us.
  5. Finally, I dislike the name of "Counter Vandalism Unit". It clearly harks to the US's Counter Terrorism Unit. I dislike equating vandals with terrorists. While it is important to dispose of vandalism, I see all vandals (well, almost all) as potentially redeemable and potential good editors.

Please note that I am most certainly not against your goals. I am only against the presentation of them. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. I don't need anyones permision to run a bot. I dont think thats the issue. I never requested any permisions to run my bots. I asked the two board members if the images were ok. They said it was ok and that they were reserving rights to object in the future (standard disclaimer given to anyone using the wikipedia/wikimedia logos for obvious reasons)
  2. Indeed there is a connection. We remove vandalism on foundation operated sites. We do not however do this for the foudation (aka we are not payed). We do it "For Great Encyclopedia"!
  3. Visual Identity Guidelines were created "AFTER" the CVU logos. I did not have them to begin with. Since the logos are not intended to harm wikipedia or to imposter board etc, I don't see a problem. Also since the board have not voiced objections, it is clear the board does not mind the images. They know about the images because I posted them on their talk pages and they voiced opinions.
  4. The project is free. And the logo in question is the logo of the project. It is not like anything "external" is happening. The logo is a property of the wikimedia foundation. The image is not released into the public domain. It is still copyrighted by the foundation even though its a derived version. The only organisation that can object copyright concerns is the foundation and the images should not be used outside the foundation. Since they know about it and are not objecting, nothing to worry about. If the copyright lawyers of the foudnation sue the foundation due to the logos it will be a rather humorous sight. Sarcasm aside I really dont think there is an issue here.
  5. I cannot help your objections about the name. And btw there is no "US's Counter Terrorism Unit". CTU only existed in the popular series 24, a fictional series. We could be named Wikipedia:Happy wikipedians who honestly work hard to revert vandalism with hugs and kisses. The name CVU has clearly implies we oppose vandalism and that we make an effort against it. You are welcome to object to the name of the CVU, thats your taste. I personaly like the name. Changing the name would not change how the CVU operates and I am quite satisfied how CVU operates. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Like I said getting stuck at the cosmetics is really unnecesary. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Question

Hi there Sam:

I just noticed your statements on your user page in Greek and Latin. Are you into the Classics? Just wondering... Thanks, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm studying both for {{A Level]]. I'll be doing some New Testament Greek if I study theology at university as well. (et tu)|(kai su), Bratsche? Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Paraphrasing Julius Caesar? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I cannot retract those last comments. alea iacta est. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR - SimonP

Hi, you wrote that on the above RFAR that what is in your jurisdiction is relatively minor. For the benefit of interested parties, could you possibly elaborate slightly on what these minor things that you do feel is in your jurisdiction are?

Essentially we are alledging that SimonP has violated

WP:OWN, an official policy, being the one of these that we feel SimonP has violated the most. So I was wondering if you could possibly be so kind as to maybe give an explanation of why you feel that there is little in your jurisdiction, and what this little might be? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 00:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)
My admin request went up in flames. (But thanks anyways!)

Hey, Sam, I wanted to thank you for your support of my (unfortunately unsuccessful) request for adminship. The final tally was 37/16/5, which fell short of the needed 75-80% for "consensus". I was relieved to see your vote for me... and also a little complimented. I mean, I totally botched the meaning of your ArbCom statement... I'm glad that you overlooked that, as well as my other mistakes. I don't know if or when I'll go up for nomination again, but even if I don't I will try not to betray the trust that you and 36 others were willing to place in me. Thanks for having faith in me... and happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It takes something to admit when you were wrong. That is a good measure of personality. Better luck next time! Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toolserveraccount

Hello,
the link to your tool is offline. Can you please give me a other link? (Please answer me here and give me a advice at my german wikipedia-Site). --DaB.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~samkorn/citation/bookref.php Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MY NEPHEWS CAME OVER THIS AFTERNOON

AND THEY PLAYED ON MY COMPUTOR, WHICH CAUSED IT TO TYPE IN ALL CAPITALS (AGAIN). I REALIZE THAT THIS IS THOUGHT OF AS "YELLING" AND I CAN STOP IT, BY HOLDING DOWN THE SHIFT KEY, BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD LET YOU SEE WHATS HAPPENING SO YOU COULD ADVICE ME. IT DOESNT AFFECT THE NUMBERS, JUST THE LETTERS SEE1234567890. MY BROTHER IN LAW GAVE ME INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO FIX IT LAST TIME, BUT IT DIDNT SEEM TO WORK. ANYWAY, SINCE YOU ARE AN ADMINISTRATOR I THOUGHT I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR HELP. THANKS pickelbarrel 02:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goodarticle tag - a new proposal

hi, what do you think of my new proposal? i think it should satisfy everyone, assuming they dont have a secret agenda and have finished comprehensive school. basically the template stays, but the tags on the main articlepages are all removed for now, pending the result of a *proper* discussion involving the wider wikipedia community. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#The good article tag on main article space. Zzzzz 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well my brother in law fixed the problem...again.

Ev came over and fixed my computor from typing in all capitals...again, but I sure would like to know how to fix it myself. He told his boys not to play with my computior anymore, and then just hit a button and everything was okay...the weird thing is that I had hit the same button like six times, and couldnt get it to respond. Anyway, Dan has said that he doesnt plan on working with me no matter how nice I am. He seems to listen to you so would you PLEASE talk to him. I hate fot there to be this badblood between anyone and myself...my father would have never allowed it. Pamento is gone, so there is no reason we cant get along(unless he was paying somebody to act like pamento, but Im going to assume good faith) anyway thanks for your help.pickelbarrel 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject No Ads

If you want to move this "WikiProject" to meta:, be bold and do it. There are enough Move votes on MFD that I doubt you'd see an objection to this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I noticed that you showed support for karmafist

I want to say that I appreciate it. Judging by the way many administrators behave they seem seem to be hypnotized by the blinding light that apparently shines from Jimbos ass. You put your rank on the line and choose to stick up for what you beleive is correct, and I admire that. It took me a while to find out that you helped him out becuase I wasnt sure exactly what had happened. Karma had pointed me in the right direction, but He seemed to think I was a bit more knowing than I actually am. Anyway thought i would say thanks...I wont be adding any articles as A condition of getting Karma back to his rightful place as an administrator, but I thank you for all your time. I still think that you coul;d help make Dan and I friendspickelbarrel 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the incivility. I have no interest in helping you while you continue to be incivil and downright nasty. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood, I was not triing to be rude, but rather to compliment you on sticking up for karma...It is something I myself am attempting to do. He has been run off because he feels mistreated, and near as I can tell, few of the administrators are willing to stand up for him, for fear of Jimbos retribution. I like Jimbo, and think he's done a good thing here, but near as I can tell, he hasnt preformed any miracles or died for our sins or turned waterr into wine, or cured leprocy, or really done mch of anything except make an encyclopedia. Its a pretty good encyclopedia, but still...'its only an encyclopedia. Now dont get me wrong...I will fight off any vandals that test his patience, but the man isnt infallable. You did the right thing by sticking to your guns...karma was a good man, and did not deserve to be treated so harshly. Im just asking that everyone make a point of showing karma that we appreciate all he's done. And also if you have time I would still like you to speak with Dan for me...Ive have been tring and tring to get him to open up his "wall" but he keeps resisting. pickelbarrel 23:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but you're wrong. I have voted on the ArbCom page to desysop Karmafist. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
WOW! well that makes my previous statement kind of embarrising. I read the part where some people were saying to get rid of him, and you had said to allow him t ocome back after two weeks and thought you werent opposed to his being here. Im still not as knowing as most people here, but I keep triing. That was the good thing about karma, he kept guiding me in my composure as well as the things I write. I hated to see him go, as nobody else seemed to even care that I was blocked without a cause. He was teaching me how to say stuff better, and nobody else seemed to care(Even Administrator UncleG was distant at the time, but I realize why), but only wanted to yell at me for it. I plan on writing Jimbo every day to try and get him back. Im sure if I am persistant enough Jimbo will change his mind. Anyway if you can let Dan know that we should try to get along, that would be awfully nice of you. pickelbarrel 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, Jimbo's a pretty obstinate guy! He's not going to let Karmafist back without community support (and we too will allow that). Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I am part of the community , and since i am still a newbie I am also "one of the wikipedias most valuable recources" so Ill bet he will probably pay extra attention to my vote...Ill let you know.pickelbarrel 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but writing to him every day isn't going to work! If you want to see Karmafist resysopped, I suggest you talk to him about the possibility of a renomination, depending how the ArbCom case turns out. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I looked on his article,

but I havent seen anything about him being obsitnate. In fact it says he has a wife, of course he may not be into her and just tell her he's obstinate, but I cant imagine him wanting that publicly known. I was just curious if you were sure you got your facts correct about this. Also do you know what infinity minus infinity is? I thought it would be zero, but my brother said it was not. He didnt tell me the answer though. Im triing to find out. He wants me to try to find the answer on my own, so I thought I would ask the knowing ones here in wikipedia. Oh have you spoken to Dan yet. I am afraid he still keeps deleting me. pickelbarrel 17:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Like most people, Jimbo will make decisions (or, as here, make them by proxy) and will rarely overturn them. Certainly asking someone every day to overturn a decision will make him more determined! It would also likely be enterpreted as trolling. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trolling

I hope simply asking everyday isnt thought of as trolling as I just asked him again. I was thinking it would be showing peaceful resistance like Ghandi did, but I suppose wikipedia might not be tolerant of the veiws and expressions of other people like britain does...If this is the case I suppose I should appologize, but I dont want to further escalate a negative oppinion. Should I Write and appologize? Maybe you had better do it for me. You could tell him that I had been asking you what to do, and you werent very clear on your oppinion, and so I though it would be okay to ask him to change his mind on something if I disagreed with it, and thats why I went to his homepage, and that I really wasnt causing any trouble, and Oh why did I ever even get involved. Listen you said if I asked politely you would help if you could...I am asking for you to please write a letter to Jimbo explaining that I didnt know any better Ive already been blocked too many times. also, while Im at it, you could write that letter to Dan I keep asking for.pickelbarrel 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Oh hey did you know the answer to the infinity minus infinity question...thanks

[edit] re Intelligent design

Evolution has two sides to it: the observation that it happens (i.e. the true proposition that species transmute) and the theory that this happens because of natural selection. Propertly speaking, therefore, evolution is a fact (i.e. true proposition) and natural selection is the theory that explains this fact. Please read this article by Gould. I've been making this point (and the necessary changes) to the evolution, Charles Darwin etc. articles for months. Mikkerpikker ... 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it just looked like the standard POV drivel. Sorry for the confusion. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers.com deal Wikiproject up for deletion

Do you know the actual status of the Answers.com deal? A trial period was supposed to begin on January 1, but I have not heard a peep about it since October. Because of the circumstances that sparked the user initiative, I think it would be inappropriate to delete or move the project if the deal has only been delayed temporarily. It also functions as a historical record of Wikipedia's progress that would be lost if the page were removed. It is still linked from Slashdot, for example. I agree that the nature of this project was unusual, but I am not convinced it was such an inappropriate use of the Wikipedia namespace at the time. Maybe you have some more information about the Answers.com deal that would change my mind. Otherwise, I think I should probably alert all of the members that it is up for deletion. But I don't really like causing a stir because I understand your intent and respect your participation in Wikipedia. Tfine80 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I just think advocacy is not something that should be happening in the Wikipedia namespace. The user namespace would be appropriate. Even more appropriate would be Meta, where I shall move it myself if the MfD doesn't change radically. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userboxes

Thanks for putting together the compromise version on Wikipedia:Userboxes. I like it a lot! --Aaron 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo-Box and more...

Hi there Sam:

Just a few things.I 'borrowed' your Jimbo quote box from your user page, as I think it is very apt, and helps to show people that we are actually here for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. Hope you don't mind. Oh, and I meant to ask you earlier: are you into the classics? Because I see that you have a certain aptitude for Latin and Greek. Cheers, Bratschetalk 05:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Congrats on your new ArbCom duties! It's great to see you up there. –b

Not mine! Thanks to Tony Sidaway. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have you heard of "the curse" ?

I read an article entitled The Curse of Scotland. It stated that Colin Feril used the term to refer to "The Exteremly Small Size Of Scottish Mens Genitalia". I was thinking that it might be a bit of a POV to refer to all scottish mens genitalia as "extremely small". Wouldnt it be better to state it was referring to the apparently small size of scottish mens genitalia, or some thing of that nature. Thanks. Oh and by the way have you written Dan yet? If so what did he say? I gave him an award so I think he may be more receptive to me now. Hoping for the best pickelbarrel 21:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV to refer (with attributation) to the POV statements of others. I am really not willing to mediate in this instance. I suggest that, if Dan has not responded to you, it is probably not worth continuing the conversation. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference and gave a reason in the summary. If further discussion is needed, it is probably better in the talk page of the article rather than here. bobblewik 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tom tom company

hi Sam, I have found the the tom tom company page on this site to be very informitive , but it appears to be incorrect , sorry, i have researched thier site & found, that not all tom tom units are phone compatable , & various units are available only in certain countries around the world

eg; Australian availablility

   rider
   tom tom one
   tom tom 500
   tom tom 300

eg; phone non compatable

    rider 
    tom tom one 
    tom tom 300

eg; phone compatable

    tom tom 700
    tom tom 500

they appear to be all called tom tom Go , because they Go out of the box

personally i own a tom tom 700 bought from USA & now working in Australia i hope this can help with this site to keep it informed & uptodate

the tom tom site , not like the units , is a little hard to navigate , but also informative on all devices

Les 220.239.41.230 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this has come to me. If you want to update these articles, please go ahead at the appropriate place. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling on my own userpage?!

Excuse me? Trolling? Who the fuck are you to decide what is and is not acceptible content for a USER page? What the fuck? How can I make a TROLLING EDIT to my OWN user page? Wow, is "shit-for-brains" a pre-requisite for becoming an admin? --Analogdemon (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How can I make a TROLLING EDIT to my OWN user page? Quite easily, clearly. Please stop your incivility and personal attacks. Consider this a final warning. As to "who the fuck" I am, I am a Wikipedian, and have been for long enough to know that what you were doing is trolling, and what trolling is is unacceptable behaviour. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite easily, clearly. Yeah that really clears things up nicely. Thanks for the wonderful explanation. How about actually answering my question. --Analogdemon (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Very well. You placed material there that was clearly intended to inflame. I call that trolling. So does the Arbitration Committee, and Dschor and SPUI both got bans and probation for the same action as you. You are treading on extremely thin ice here, my friend. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Intended to inflame? If you don't like my user page, don't look at it. It's really not that hard. Wow. And Arbcom has proven themselves to be absolute idiots in dealing with SPUI. I don't know how anyone can argue that. --Analogdemon (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this. I am >< this close to blocking you for a week for personal attacks and for intentional disruption of Wikipedia. Your behaviour had no other aim than to inflame. Nor does this conversation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If your willing...

I have asked for your help on quite a number of occasions, and Have tried to always ask in a polite, civil, and uninflamitory way, but each time, it appears that you seem unwilling to do what I ask you, which is contrary to what your userpage states. The last time you even said out said you were unwilling to help. If you are busy, didnt hav etime, I understand, But you said you were "unwilling" to help. Thats okay too, but what is NOT okay is that you proudly dissplay on your userpage that you "will do what you can to help out" which is very misleading to viewers as this seems to only apply to helping out the editors you feel like helping out. I have remedied your userpage to make things a bit more clear, hoping that this will keep make things more clear for those of us asking for your assistance. pickelbarrel 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It takes two to tango

It is clear by now that you have voted in an ArbCom case without bothering to look at the evidence.

Your only source for the decision was what Fred Bauder ( a self edmiting anti-Zionist) had to say about the case. This after he refused to recuse himself from a case he had a strong bias about.

Here is some of the evidence (which are on the case) that you choose to ignore:

User Zero was as much a party to edit wars as the people you voted to ban. Zero is continuing this edit war all over Wikipedia articles that deal with palestine/israel and the conflict:

I made an suggestion to discuss this, in a a civilized way, cause i think that with Fred leading you , you have not got to the bottom of the issue. Still wiling to do that. So far there was no reply. Not very civilized.

Zeq 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read the evidence, and I have voted on the current proposals, all of which I agree with. I am considering whether I need to add more proposals to deal with other parties. Don't leap to conclusions. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sam, Thanks for the civilized answer.
The Pal exodus article: I have tried, like many editors before, to discuss on talk how to make this article NPOV. All those attempts have failed. Some editors, sure that ArbCom will rule in their favor (with Fred, a person that admited to be anti-Zionist and against israel right to exist and that made a statment that "Wikipedia is full of Zionist propeganda" - I can understand why they had no reason the compromise.
People go for compromise when they know they have a fair chance to win but a fair chance to loose - so they compromise.
People will not go for compromise if they know they can win. That is what took place in these two articles and indeed ArbCom has now banned the two Pro-Israel supporters alhough the other side (Zero, Ian, Palmiro) took as much part of the edit war as the (smaller) Pro-Israeli side. The same disruptive behaviour by Zero is evident on many articles that I have never participted in. (or in articles I am now banned and he continue to edit)
I have stated many times that banning is not the answer, that I want to fix the articles to be NPOV, that I will ban myself from these articles if ArbCom will implement a Mechanism that wil make thse articles NPOV by interducing all POVs. But if you insist on banning, in sake of future compromises you should apply the same type of banning the edit warrng editors from both sides.
My main goal is fixing these articles to comply with Wikipedia NPOV policy. I think we share this goal, even though you may disgree with my tactic. Still, keep the shared goal in mind. Thank You.
Have a nice day,
Zeq 07:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 07:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Barrett and the Crosstar Image

FYI: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Richard_Barrett_and_the_Crosstar_Image Kaldari 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: SPUI

I see there's a new message, i'll see what that is too, and i'll respond to your message. Karmafist 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, hold on a sec. Writing it now. Karmafist 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright, before I begin anything, let me just say I have nothing but the highest respect for you Sam. I still remember that night on IRC, and I doubt i'll ever forget. It's my belief that the Arbcom and Jimbo as a whole have lost their way, but some of the individual members, such as yourself, I still respect immensely.

That said, I will remove it, if SPUI asks me to. From what I saw, SPUI's only real crime in that was being annoying, and that shouldn't be a crime at all. Hell, Joeyramoney's only real crime was being in the wrong place in the wrong time and not knowing what's going on, yet that apparently is enough nowadays.

You're a kind and persuasive person, my friend. If you can talk to SPUI and get him to ask me to remove it, I will in a heartbeat.

I don't particularly like that userbox, but I will fight the anyone until the end of time who embodies the kind of behavior that has sprung up against it. We need to respect each other and follow procedure, if that had been sent to WP:TFD, and those who disagreed with it talked to others with similiar viewpoints to vote respectfully there, this Wheel War would have never happened in the first place. That's the key, my friend. Respect and Procedure. When procedure's ignored, it has to be ignored right back until it finally works.

I await to hear how things turn out with you and SPUI, and just remember while you're there, most of the things he does that are "disruptive" are often because he's ostracized by people in positions such as yourself(basically, the cabal, it seems like you're in it now), despite his tens of thousands of quality contributions to this project. Karmafist 22:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I shall reply to you more fully tomorrow. I am currently not feeling very well and am very tired. However, I protest very much at you placing me in a cabal. I strenuously deny it. Beyond that which is natural and inevitable with people in a social group, I do not (and do not intend to) take part in any cabal activities. I am a strong supporter of the influence of the community. However, there are three competing influences: process, community, and product. I am strongly product oriented, with community coming with it, because, without the community, there would be no product. However, I strongly believe the community must have the intent to enhance the product, not to exist for its own right. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, One More Thing

If SPUI can finally get some respect for all the help he's given to this project, then doing that was definately worth it. And by the way, if anyone treats you the way SPUI's been treated please let me know. I'd do for any Wikipedian, even Jimbo, what i'm trying to do for SPUI right now if it appears that they are a victim of a mob mentality. Karmafist 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, And Another Thing

If i'm blocked for this, i'll likely just make a sockpuppet and continue on contributing to the encyclopedia and community in good faith. I've done nothing wrong, and ultimately I can't act in a way that will justify those who have been acting hotheaded and disrespectully outside of policy lately. I know you don't want it to come down to that, neither do I, but let's keep the lines of dialogue and mutual respect open so we can avoid that outcome. Karmafist 22:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Apology

I'd like to apologize, at least partially, kind of the way you apologized to me at Megamanzero's RFA. It was not my intention to insult you in regards to the cabal comment(it was just an observation in regards to who you associate with these days,and you're right cabals are just extentions of the human desire to congregate and associate, they just become a problem when they're not transparent, but that's another story), and I hope you do feel better tomorrow, i'd like to continue discussing this with you. However, those three things you said that make up our project must all be equally respected, or the others will suffer and eventually fail. Have a good night's sleep, my friend. I hope you feel less stressed in the morning. Hopefully, we can start here to make a first step towards ending all these infantile crises that keep on popping up. Karmafist 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The morning? Crikey, no, I've got to go to school! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I may have been too quick to react,

I was a bit upset that you kept saying you "weren't willing" to help me, but then I realized that everthing Ive asked you to help with got done by somebody else(except getting DAN to respond to me, which I'm starting to think may be a lost cause) so I guess you probably deligatied your authority and had somebody else do it for you...which is fine. I was under the impression that you just didnt care, and thats why I was so upset. And you know what else...If you HAD convinced DAN ro respond, I probably would have written the article with him and never talked to either of you again...This way we have created a bond of sorts. So to appologize I gave you the barnstar at the top of your page. your welcome pickelbarrel 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] May I suggest

That you take a look at previous ArbCom cases involving Zero. He always get out with a warning while the Pro-Israel editor get banned. This pattern is an incentive for him not to accept any compromise.

IN Pal exodus I have suggested to stay away fro several weeks (and I did) while the editors who "owned" the article (and prevent ANY change to it were invited to "write for the enemy" (as Wikipdia guidelines actually suggest). They did nothing. Aftyer there was no wilingness on their part to compromise I started to delte, but only parts which were pure propeganda (The Ashrwaii quote) and parts which were unrelevant to the article or created a strong POV bias to one side.

All is document in talk. None of this was not discussed before. The only problm is that the Pro palestinian side knows they never get punished, they have no reason to work out a mediated compromise.

The story in the other article is pretty much the same. Over there they refused to accept the mediation results and took it to ArbCom, again knowing that eventully the pro-Israel editors are banned.

In this pattern ArbCom actually works against the idea of any future dispute resolution.

Have a nice day. Zeq 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You may also review this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=34153124#Message_to_Arbitrators

Look for Fred baudeer reply about "Zionist propeganda". (he later explained that he is against Israel right to exist, i.e. anti-zionist)

There is also an important just above ( in bold ) about "Cherrypicking" quotes that apear higher in the page. This comment is critical to the ArbCom decision.

This "Cherrypicking" of quotes to create a POV that is against the View-Point of the scholar who wrote the book from which the quotes were taken were the sole reason for removing these quotes (after it was discussed on talk)

Zeq 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Hope School Went Well

Hello my friend, I hope school went well for you, and I hope this little protest of mine can begin the healing process by building some respect between us all once again. You reaching out to SPUI would be a tremendous step.

Also, to let you know, i've asked Analogdemon, who was appreciative of my support of SPUI during this difficult time for him, to remove his boxes against you. Whatever happened in the past between you two is in the past, I know you're a good person, and I AGF that he's also a good person who just got into a miscommunication with you. I think if you can reach out to SPUI here, he'll likely change his attitude towards you, and if not, i'll ask him again.

Doing things like this is the only way we're going to stop the rancor that keeps on popping up, and I hope you can help me do it, my friend. Karmafist 17:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Success

I figured you should see this on Analogdemon's user page after I asked him to remove it [3], basically the same way i'm asking people to show some respect to SPUI in asking him to ask me to get rid of that template. -- respect towards others goes a long way. Karmafist 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering if you could help...

I was given this award,

A Douchebag Barnstar (for not being a douchbag)--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
A Douchebag Barnstar (for not being a douchbag)--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

but the editor said it was supposed to have a slash through it, and right now I have to say it doent look all too endearing on my userpage...could you put a slash though it for me, or teach me how? That way it looks like it represents the fact that I am NOT a douchbag, and I dont get a bunch of kids making fun...Thanks pickelbarrel 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DA

I have expressed some concerns at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision which you may wish to take a look at. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero

Here is some more proofs that Zero continue edit wars in the last 48 hours including removal of well sourced material .


This maybe of value:

  • [9] it is clear that Zero is using wikipedia against this directive in his case from 2004:
  • "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".


Zeq 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All parties are subject to Committee sanctions if they have acted poorly. The Committee does not look kindly on personal attacks. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

As a retalvly new user at Wikipedia I have only came accross this page Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes in part of your decision in my ArbCom case.

It is enfortunate that I was not ware of this page before cause it would have allowed me ways to seeq what i have ben looking for in the case of Artcle Palestinia_Exodus which is ways to get wider participations and mediators.

I have noticed that ArbCom is mentioned only as "last resort"

Therefor I would like to make a motion to suspend the ArbCom case and to first ensure the dispute over this article goes through all the steps mention in the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes policy. If I am not mistaken it is actually a pre-condition to any ArbCom case.

Thank You. Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As I have mentioned many times I would not mind voluntarlity banning myself from this article once a mechanism to make it NPOV is found.

Zeq 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If all parties agree that the case can be mediated, I would support that. Otherwise, no. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So you just gave them the insentive to do what they always did: refuse mediation. Please reconsider . So far ArbCom has been just doing what the other side needs: banning those who disrputed them from using Wikipdia for political propeganda. Zeq 21:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mediation is, by its very nature, entered into by all parties willingly. I think you might be appealing for mediation a bit too late. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This is where you come in. ArbCom usually verify that such dispute resolution took place BEFORE accepting the case. The other side just want me banned (which you have already given them although the discussion still goes on on what the rason for your decision is). ArbCom errored by not demanding from both parties to exhaust other dispute resolution on palestinian exodus prior to coming to ArbCom. The whole idea in Wikipedia is to encourge such coperation and other ways of resolution.

BTW, have you looked at the extent other parties are edit warring or engage in "disruptive editing" ? Zeq 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake

Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't careful enough. I reverted myself. BrokenSegue 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding

Look dude, no hard feelings. I understand that you were just doing your job and I was just very upset that SPUI has decided to leave Wikipedia over all this. Furthermore I know I said some things that I shouldn't have said, and I'll man up to it. I've had a few days to cool off and get my head straight, which is why I removed the code in support of SPUI and replaced it with what I see as the situation. It's all good though, and don't take my little diatribe about the situation as an attack on you. I was merely stating what happened. Let's both look for ways to improve Wikipedia and just let bygones be bygones. Thanks! --Analogdemon (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My arbitration case

Hi,

As you know, I am one of the editors in danger of getting banned from 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I hope you will look examine the actual issue carefully before placing your vote. At least do take a look at some other proposed proposed decisions in the Workshop.

I know Zeq has been utterly counter-productive, at times rude during this case. I do not support his style, and tried to tell him to take it easy per e-mail a couple of times, apparently without success.

I hope that the arbitration case will get to the issue, which is (for the 1948 Arab-Israeli War) the legitimacy of the quotations of Haj Amin al-Husayni. Two quotations are disputed, you will find sources here , and here.


With best regards, -- Heptor talk 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please feel free to ask me questions either on my user page or per e-mail if I left something unclear. -- Heptor talk 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

I am terribly sorry. I made a mistake and edited the wrong window unknowingly. —Aiden 23:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent CheckUser request

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage

You asked me a while back to have a stab at redesigning your userpage; I've put together a draft in my sandbox. Have a look and let me know what you think. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I merged the histories and moved in the subpages. If I can do anything else to help, let me know! Essjay Talk • Contact 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of VeryVerily

Dear Arbitrator,

There is a vote under way which would maintain the main restriction on me which forced me off Wikipedia. If it goes through, I will be effectively hard-banned, since (as the last year has shown) I can't function under these conditions.

I don't really know you, and don't know if you know me, but I was a very productive user for a very long time. Though sometimes controversial, I believe I have always been a careful and conscientious editor. I once made hundreds of edits a week here, and every time I read Wikipedia I see how much more I could do to help were I allowed. But with that rate of editing and the expanded defintions of "revert", I am too vulnerable to the stress of constant blocking, and after seeing how this "enforcement" worked, I was forced to walk away.

I spent hours laying out a specific defense for everything the AC complained about last time. It will all be for nothing if this goes through.

And where is the justification for this restriction, the finding of facts, the issues in the evidence I presented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily? I explained in the presented cases, why I didn't think a talk page "discussion" was needed (e.g., I was being stalked). And it's been a year I've waited now; what is enough?

I urge you, please don't go along with this.

Thanks for listening,

VeryVerily 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU

I am leaving this message to all 10 people at Special/checkuser list. Therefore forgive me for its being impersonal. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for CheckUser#cleanup needed. Your response and/or actions there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Irpen 23:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Hello! If you get a chance, could you take a look at the block log of this user? I have permanently blocked this account before, but subsequently lifted it after some extensive dialogue with the user. However, the autoblocker is still being triggered, possibly because the user is editing from a roaming IP. Is this supposed to happen? --HappyCamper 20:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked, but I can't understand it. If you can get the user to say exactly what the block message is, it may help. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks like it's fixed now. Wonderful! --HappyCamper 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot flags

Hi, in re: Bobblewik, I think there is some conflation of the two purposes of bot rules. The first was to avoid agents that could do significant damage in a short space of time, by vetting bots before permitting them The second was, having ensured the bots were "bomb proof", to avoid the swamping of "recent changes" with bot edits. In Bobblewick's case, the damage he can do is very limited, especially if he throttles his change rate, but he is certainly not "bomb proof" (and wouldn't, I suspect, claim to be) therefore giving him a bot flag is a bad move. Bot status, on the other hand would be fairly harmless, but really just a fix to pacify those who for some reason object either to his edits, their speed, Bobblewik personally or some combination of the above. Rich Farmbrough 21:41 25 February 2006 (UTC).

People can't seem to work out the distinction (a valid one) that you are making, so I'm ignoring it. To be honest, people are complaining about him making an edit every 30 seconds without a bot flag, which seems a very reasonable speed. I don't see why he should be so limited. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of VeryVerily

Then tell me what you want from me! What have I done wrong? I responded to every allegation made by the ArbComm, in excruciating detail. I was a major "useful" editor, with nearly 12,000 edits since 2003. Yes, I got into some conflicts, I was editing in very "hot" areas, but I conducted myself responsibly, and no one has shown otherwise. Where is the evidence against me? This restriction is a death knell, and for what? I voluntarily left for over a year! What more do you want? That's the point of this appeal. Don't just go along with the crowd! VeryVerily 23:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you show us that you can edit without causing conflict (not necessarily without being in a conflict) for a couple of months? If you do that, I for one would be prepared to lift the restrictions further. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Causing conflict? This seems to mix up attacker and defender. Of course I can edit without being in conflict (by making trivial edits), but since my areas of interest (politics and history) and knowledge happen to also be "hot" areas of Wikipedia, getting these right often means dealing with nogoodniks like Ruy Lopez who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy and in so doing ruining our articles. But if you really mean that I've caused conflict, could you tell me how? In what cases was I not operating in the best interests of the encyclopedia, its quality, and its credibility? The previous ruling certainly provided no such examples. VeryVerily 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can work without causing conflict, then I shall vote to remove your restrictions. I am not sure whether you have caused conflict in the past. Why don't you show us you won't in the future? Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of a Bot

Hello Sam Korn. In discussion about bobblewik you called the definition I cited - "Bots are automatic processes interacting with Wikipedia over the World Wide Web" - a really bad definition. I know zip about Bots so I relied on the "official policy" (as it calls itself). Are you up for pushing a better definition? Regards. Stroika 07:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to tighten up the first sentence of that page. I don't really know a huge amount about bots myself, but I do know enough to see that that is an unsatisfactory beginning. I'll leave a note on the talk page asking for other opinions. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. Had no idea how to do it myself. They'd start talking code and then I've had it. Stroika 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA counting

It must be that New math striking terror into the populace again... Georgewilliamherbert 22:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Other than that I'm British, yes! I need a comprehensive education to make up for my comprehensive education. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am well used to being ignored

But I must restate the problems I have here. First of all, the statement of "insertion of POV" as a bannable offense is vague and open to interpretation, and I don't trust administrators, many of whom edit from a point of view that is ideologically closer to Ruy Lopez than to myself. Second, Ruy Lopez has done more than enough to receive a ban on KR related articles, in fact all articles (if anyone here bothered to look at the evidence). I have seen others banned from articles altogether for commiting lesser or equal crimes. It is disturbing that the Arbcom has not come up with a "finding of fact" condemning him of POV pushing. Third, there is no guarentee that his sockpuppets would be detected if he used a proxy or masked his IP. The provision I placed in the Workshop (which was ignored) called for the banning of people reasonably believed to be Ruy Lopez (i.e. making very similar edits). The Arbcom had no problem passing the same thing in a decision involving a certain User:Beckjord. Thank you. CJK 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animations

I have only just spotted your animations on Left-arm orthodox spin and Left-arm unorthodox spin - well done! They are great! Would it be difficult to create similar ones for other bowling styles - off spin (where the current image is just awful), leg spin, inswinger, etc? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already done them. They're on off break and leg break. Actually, I haven't done the swing articles yet, because they are significantly more difficult. I shall, when I have time. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah - right - well done again, then! Presumably we could just copy them (with suitable caption) to off spin and leg spin, and off cutter and leg cutter, since they are all much of a muchness, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Be my guest! Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] checkuser request

Hi, would it be possible for you to run a checkuser on Nameme (talk · contribs) and see if it matches up with deleted user Get-back-world-respect (talk · contribs)? I have reason to believe that Nameme is really GBWR avoiding a block and making controversial changes through a sock to avoid further warnings. I'm also being harassed on my talk page by the user. I'm not asking that you take any action: if there's any action to be taken I'll bring it up to arbcom or RfC or AN, or something else. But I'd like to know if they're the same person before I take any action that may make me look like a fool. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire!

[edit] Hi Sam

Please review this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq/Evidence#Evidence_ignored_by_ArbCom Thanks ! Zeq 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California State Route 1

Please take a look at it now and let me know what you think. I've reduced it to major junctions and cities...JohnnyBGood 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better width-wise. Could still be cut down on height. Perhaps this could be made a horizontal bar somehow, lower down the page? Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[10]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal

Feel free to comment at my appeal. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser backlog

There's a significant backlog building up on WP:RFCU. Would it be possible to grant this priv to more users to clear the backlog? RFCU plays an important role in keepin Wikipedia from abuse. I've asked this of others too. — ciphergoth 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decisions in bot applications

I do not know if you have been watching the voting in my Bobblebot application.

Please look at the assertion by Commander Keane: I think one legitimate oppose is all that should be required to deny a bot operating approval.

People have spent two weeks voting for and against. The previous application also took two weeks of voting. If he is right, we could have all saved our time. As you know, I was cautious about a second application and I would certainly not have re-applied if I knew sucess was defined as: zero oppose votes.

If that is the policy, the current text on the project page needs updating. It would be useful. There are many editors that oppose bots running now and there will be many in the future. A zero-oppose policy would be a useful way to prevent bot activity that a single editor did not like.

This application is in limbo. Many editors want to know the outcome. If I have met the definition of rough consensus, that would be useful to know. If permission is granted or granted with conditions, I would still be happy to discuss the working details before starting. If bot permission is not granted, I can lift the suspension of non-bot delinking and work with the many other editors that are interested in synchronising the MoS and articles.

Would you please help clarify the basis for the bot decision and the decision itself? Thanks for your help. bobblewik 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know little about this part of bot policy. To be honest, it looks like a rough consensus to me, but I'm biased ;-). Commander Keane's position is tenable but not true. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoring

Hi, I know what you mean, the Advanced Course is being doen slowly but surely (one task I didn't do for over 4 months). I was saying to Sam Vimes, I should be a member at the MCC next year, so if your still on here you'll have to come down and watch a Test at Lords, from the comfort of the pavillion. You certainly seem to have done a lot on wikipedia, Arbitration Commitee, CleanUp, Administrator (but why not a Steward, or Bureaucrat yet, one must ask?). How did you get beyond editing and into admin stuff, I'd be interested to have a go at more admin functions (obviously not runs for an admistrator just yet (I doubt I's get a single vote with my, rather modest, edit count!), but not sure how to fin vandalism or find the problem whcih require admininstrative, rather than editorial, functions. Any ideas? Oh, and have a look at Cricket Quiz on the cricket portal, I think I may have to give a clue to my question as no-one seems to have had any luck with it (although admittedly it is a very hard qquestion). --Wisden17 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR/Commentaries

Hi,

reading your comments on Fred Bauder's point about commentaries, it occurred to me that some editors might not be aware that there is a substantial difference between comments and commentaries.

A "commentary" on some literary work (e.g. the Bible) is a line-by-line analysis, rather than a work analysing it in some other way.

You have stated that you support the existance of articles that appear to be commentaries because their sources are commentaries. However, it is my opinion that this expresses a confusion about what commentaries are.

Fred Bauder's point is not about wikipedia not being a collection of articles appearing to be commentaries, but about wikipedia not being a line-by-line analysis of scripture. Fred's point would not preclude wikipedia containing analysis of scripture, nor articles deriving from sources that are line-by-line analyses of scripture, but simply forbid wikipedia being a line-by-line analysis of scripture - i.e. forbid wikipedia having all of the articles Genesis 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, .....Matthew 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, ....... 6:7, 6:8, 6:9, 6:10, ......... revelations 24:12, 24:13, 24:14... (although it would not forbid isolated and significant verses to have articles to themselves, such as John 3:16).


--Victim of signature fascism 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Presuming that Bible verses can have articles, the sources will generally be commentaries (and I fully know the difference) because there is little else written about individual verses. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Lib Dem

Hi. Please do not reintroduce copyrighted images into these templates. The only justification Wikipedia has for keeping them on its system is fair use, and fair use will not apply in any circumstance this image is used. This is to prevent the Wikimedia Foundation from liability for infringing copyrights. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Party logos can be used freely in Wikipedia. You should do your homeworks before making pointless accusations Asterion 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, why are you editing other Wikipedians user pages? This goes against WP:Civility and good manners! 86.30.24.31

As my edit summary showed, I apologised for the intrusion. I was only removing illegal images. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU—anybody home?

Is anyone currently working WP:RCU? As I type this, the backlog is at 88 requests. RadioKirk talk to me 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid the tool is currently not working for me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, as of today, it is working. I am looking at a request now. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about proposed arbitration remedies

I have some serious concerns about the the Arbcom sanctions proposed against me in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision. The proposed remedy that I find most problematic (put forth by User:Dmcdevit) reads: "Crotalus horridus is prohibited from creating or editing userboxes (either templatized or hard-coded into a userpage". The problem I have with this is that I have about a dozen userboxes, and this would heavily restrict my ability to edit my own user page. No one has ever claimed that my user page was disruptive - see User:Crotalus horridus - none of the controversial user boxes (political, religious, etc.) are there, nor is anything else that violates Wikipedia policy.

I also have problems with the second remedy, "Crotalus horridus is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." This simply isn't justified based on the evidence, which shows only a handful of isolated instances where I admittedly acted unwisely (as virtually all Wikipedians do from time to time). It should be noted that the other party to arbitration, User:Tony Sidaway, has stated that he feels that these remedies are unnecessary [11]. I'm also concerned that these findings against me, as the plaintiff, will have a chilling effect on individuals who want to bring well-founded arbitration cases in the future, since no editor is perfect and almost anyone has some edits that could be construed as disruptive or as violating Wikipedia policy.

I'm curious as to why you voted in favor of these proposed remedies. What made you conclude that this was necessary? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS)

It is my view, from looking at the evidence presented that you have been disruptive, and continued to be even when you recognised that you were not helping matters. You are wrong in thinking that we should only pursue remedies against people who have been "prosecuted". The ArbCom is not a court, and does not obey strict legalisms. If people have done nothing wrong, then they shouldn't be scared to come forward. If they have done something wrong, then surely you will agree it just that they be sanctioned.
As to your userpage, this may be a good opportunity to get some useful content on there. You never know... ;-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
All that was shown is that I acted unwisely on isolated occasions. Few Wikipedians have not done so from time to time. Can you honestly say that you have never done or said anything on Wikipedia that you have later regretted? I simply do not see what conduct was so disruptive that these remedies are needed - and I especially do not see why my editing of my own userpage should be enjoined. Isolated instances of unwise activity do not constitute a pattern of disruption, and this decision therefore violates WP:AGF. Keep in mind that the other party to the arbitration doesn't even want these remedies passed. As for my current userpage, I do feel that the content there is useful, and no one has even claimed that it was disruptive. The only userpage activity anyone has ever complained about is the activity done under User:Userboxes, and it should be noted that no less an authority than Jimbo [12] has seriously considered the idea of moving userbox templates into userspace (while continuing to transclude them) as a compromise. I'm not asking for "strict legalisms" to be obeyed. I'm asking that my editing be taken as a whole, and that isolated incidents not be taken out of context to impose punishments that are clearly unjustified in light of my actual, substantive contributions to the encyclopedia.
I would also like to make it clear that I do not intend to continue editing Wikipedia if this is the thanks I am to receive for my contributions. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the CU on 40 Days of Lent

We now have some respite from the socks, and can hopefully make some more positive changes to the article. MSJapan 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bobblewik situation

I'm trying to find out the details of what Bobblewik said in regards to this comment you made:

19:15, 25 February 2006 Sam Korn unblocked Bobblewik (contribs) (has promised not to make any more such edits without consensus)

as, AFAIK, consensus has not been found for such edits, yet Bobblewik is still making them. I'm considering a block, so I'd like to find out what exactly was said. Thanks for your assistance. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found Bobblewik's explanation, and realized e's making a different sort of MoS changes (unit fixes) which do not seem to be particularly controversial. Glad the problem seems to have worked itself out. JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help needed

Hello Sam, we haven't talked before but I was hopeing you could help me with a problem, since I saw your name on the list of those with check user abilities. I suspect user baku87 may have atleast one sockpuppet if not two, which are druffc and Johnstevens5.

The problem really started when baku87 brought up outlandish POV charges against the Military of Armenia article. Soon he was joined by druffc and just today by Johnstevens5. What makes me suspect that he may have sockpuppets is how the first edits druffc and Johnstevens5 made were on the talk page to the Military of Armenian article. Also, if you check out baku87 contributions, you will see that he has had contact with Johnstevens5 at a time when Johnstevens5 doesn't even have his user page set up. Also, druffc knew about edit summary, something that most new users do not learn after only a couple of edits. Please look into this, thank you in advance!--Moosh88 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling of user:Bonaparte

Half of edits made every day by Mikkalai are Anti-romanian. There is blocking on Anti-semitic edits, nazi edits and also on Anti-romanian edits. His hatred is manifested against all Romania/Moldova/Transnistria related articles. His favourite target is to constantly remove the words Romanian language from any Moldova related article. Moldova is also a region from Romania and was split by sovietic force in 1940 from Romania. He is russian and his hatred towards romanians is manifested by his Anti-Romanian edits made every day. Yes, he was blocked once for violating and Anti-Romanian edits. From a moldovan.

See his block log and his anti-romanian contributions. Mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

See user:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry. mikka (t) 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

Hi, there is a new proposal about date links. This time it is not a bot proposal, merely an amendment to the Manual of style that gives specific permission to remove unnecessary links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates and vote whichever way you think is best. Thanks. bobblewik 15:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copy of Message at User talk:Mushroom

I am the wife of User:Danny B., as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:

This user is a sock puppet of Ted Wilkes, as established by Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006#Ted Wilkes (talk • contribs) and related accounts,

Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [13] you wrote:

"See this request for CheckUser: Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike are the same person." Mushroom (Talk) 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [14] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.

However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:

"Ted Wilkes, Danny B. and Karl Schalike appear likely to be the same."

Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [15], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. (User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).

Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.

Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Cynthia B. is identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW alias User:JillandJack. Both Cynthia B. and DW/JillandJack or Ted Wilkes contributed to the following articles: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],etc. This suggests that DW alias Ted Wilkes has created many more sockpuppets, as DW did in the past. Onefortyone 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It is my professional non-CheckUser opinion that, yes, Cynthia B. inhabits the same body as Danny B. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

What method do you recommend I use to communicate with ArbCom members in a public forum? There's no evidence that the ArbCom has read the talk page or taken any suggestions into account. These "remedies" emerged from nowhere, with not even the other party in the arbitration case desiring them, and were voted on with no deliberation (except by Mindspillage) or any other justification. I have a right to plead my case to ArbCom in a forum that is actually being monitored, and I want the other members to know that their votes will have the same effect as a permanent ban. You obviously want me gone from Wikipedia - fine. But does everyone on the ArbCom feel that way? And does this reflect the community consensus? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two main ways of communicating with the Arbitration Committee. Firstly, there is the decision talk page. We do read this, but we don't often reply as it involves a long debate which we don't want to enter. To be honest, we don't have the time. The second option is to email an arbitrator (my email address is smoddy AT gmail DOT com) and they will forward it to the private mailing list. We actually have discussed the case extensively. Ironically, the cases with the most discussion on-wiki have least on the mailing list. Where we have little on-wiki discussion, it probably means the case is either very simple or we have discussed it so extensively privately that we know each other's opinions well enough for on-wiki discussion to be unnecessary. However, editing the proposed decision page is far more likely to get you ignored. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So, the primary discussion takes place on a private mailing list that I have no way of reading or responding to. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about when I stated earlier that off-Wiki policy discussion should be considered harmful. This proceeding is a travesty of justice - and I'm not talking about legalisms, I'm talking about basic fairness. Why do the arbitrators feel I should be prevented from editing my own user page? No disruption was ever claimed regarding it. I haven't gotten a straight answer from any of the arbitrators regarding this, and to be honest it looks to me an awful lot like the bandwagon effect I've seen on so many other polls on Wikipedia - one person votes, and a half dozen more follow in quick succession, with no real attempt at explaining reasoning. We're told that "voting is evil", but I see nothing here but a raw vote, with no justification given. I suppose transparency is too much to hope for, but I'd at least like to know who I pissed off to get this done to me. You haven't even given me a coherent explanation for your own vote, especially on the first remedy. What specific problem do you have with my user page, which this remedy would prevent me from editing? How am I supposed to address any of Arbcom's concerns if they won't even specifically state what those concerns are? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Very well. You are creating a straw man: we aren't banning you from editing your userpage; we are banning you from editing userboxes. If you want to change your userpage, it is very easy to do so by removing the userboxes. This may not be the precise wording, but it's very clearly the intent. We want you to stop associating yourself with userboxes. As for why we discuss privately, I refer you to Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Which userboxes on my user page are objectionable, and why? Furthermore, why should I continue to stay and edit when I must deal with this level of disrespect for me and my contributions? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop putting words into our mouths. We aren't banning you from editing your userpage. We are banning you from editing userboxes in general. Your edits in the past to userboxes have prompted this, not your userpage. I suggest you try functioning without userboxes for a bit. You might enjoy it. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Societal Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Sam,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [23]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [24].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 04:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a content decision, the kind that the Committee does not give. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any committee that deals with the problem of groups misusing Wikipedia in order to promote their cause. The only mechanism to remove an article seems to be nominating it for deletion, and when I attempted that the same group of editors organized to vote it down. I believe that the arbitration committee is the correct forum to consider the article's deletion because the arbitration committee and the group of editors that control the article are two distinct groups.
No impartial person could come to the conclusion that it is an impartial article written by impartial people. The proposed remedy of removing the article may even fail to gain enough votes. But since other "remedies" are being proposed, it seems only fair to let this one be presented for an up or down vote. This proposed remedy addresses the root of the problem; the others do not. Lou franklin 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr

Re [25] - I'm afraid it's not stated anywhere, and I've never been told, that E-Mail is an accepted way to submit a statement to consideration to open an arbitration case. If the ArbCom is serious with ensuring the justice of the arbitration mechanism, it should have done whatever possible to ensure the rights and obligations of all the involved parties. Meanwhile I'm still awaiting an official and authoritive response regarding my request to review the opening of the case. Thank you very much for your attention. — Instantnood 10:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't reverse our decisions because they were technically legally wrong. We only reverse them if they were actually wrong. I see no evidence of this. This might be because you haven't presented any. I would have thought it fairly common sense that emailing people when you're blocked and need to contact them is the way to go. You even had six days after your block expired before the case was moved into voting. Attacking the technicalities here is not going to achieve anything. I'm afraid you have only your own behaviour to blame. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anywhere else, other than the WP:RFAr page itself, is the right place to have a statement disclose. By being blocked it was also impossible to contact an advocate through WP:AMA. A statement submitted before a case was opened, and a statement submitted when the workshop and voting stages were commencing, are serving very different purpose. I don't think I can submit a statement for the same purpose after the case was opened. It's not just technicalities, but the determination of the ArbCom to ensure the rights of the involved parties. Even if E-Mail is an accepted alternative, you should have suggested before its opening, not when it's closing. — Instantnood 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, how about this. You have presented no reasoning that our decision is at fault. Therefore we are not going to change it. Full stop. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for demonstrating your attitude towards how the justice of the mechanism should be ensured. — Instantnood 12:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] goodarticle tag - a new proposal

hi, what do you think of my new proposal? i think it should satisfy everyone, assuming they dont have a secret agenda and have finished comprehensive school. basically the template stays, but the tags on the main articlepages are all removed for now, pending the result of a *proper* discussion involving the wider wikipedia community. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#The good article tag on main article space. Zzzzz 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The template can be resurrected if some unlikely consensus for it is found. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
i dont follow you. which step of the proposal do you disagree with? template deletion will only happen if there is consensus, template keeping will only happen if there is consensus. for now, its just a case of a bot removing the template tags from all the articles. Zzzzz 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if it doesn't get deleted so long as it isn't used. Not deleting it might well suggest to people that it's OK to use it when it isn't. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
yes exactly. so first we remove it from all the articles where it is used. its already removed from the good articles policy. thats the main thing for me at the moment. as uou can see from the voting, getting the template itself deleted at the moment is difficult. then, the new wikipedia-wide discussion starts addressing if it could be deleted (i think that future vote could get it deleted, especially as there is an equivalent talk page template already).Zzzzz 17:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Suits me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)