User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 11

Archives
Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004
Archive2–Jan 5, 2005
Archive3–Dec 1, 2006
Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007
Archive 5–Sep 19, 2007
Archive 6–Jan 27, 2008
Archive 7–May 22, 2008
Archive 8–Dec 15, 2008
Archive 9–Mar 30, 2009
Archive 10–Oct 7, 2009
Archive 11–Oct 4, 2010
Archive 12–Sep 18, 2014

3rd viscount monckton of brenchley

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blessed break

I'm going to be away until I feel some desire to resolve petty disputes among brittle people with no sense of proportion, only to be rewarded by constant accusations of malfeasance, endless criticism, and potential unindemnified civil liability. This break will be indefinite. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I will still be active on the Lapsed Pacifist case, so if any issues come up, please tell me. I just don't want to edit on a daily basis for a while. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you need to do what is best for you, and you know better than anyone else what that is. Still, when a voice of civility and reason withdraws because the outlaws holler, it is Wikipedia's broader society that suffers the loss. In the positions of authority that have been conferred upon you because of your superior ability to fulfill them—and which, as a volunteer, you have every right to relinquish anytime you want—you spend most of your time dealing with Wikipedia's very worst. By dealing appropriately with the very worst, you make the rest of Wikipedia that much better. And rest of Wikipedia is nothing like what you Arbitrators, or even admins, are constantly subjected to. It's actually pretty good. Tens of thousands (I've never looked at the stats) of volunteers(!) devote time daily to writing and improving articles. Some write better than others, some behave better than others, but, overall, it really works amazingly well. The ratio of productive to counterproductive participants is astonishingly high. Wikipedia's very best contributors devote hours here that they could use to write more published work. Anons are responsible for a high percentage of the infantile vandalism, but a high percentage of anons' edits are either constructive or at least well intentioned. Who would have guessed near the beginning that this project would have worked out as well, or accomplished as much, as it has?

A problem in online "worlds" is that they exist only in written words, where participants never see one another or even hear their voices—missing clues that remind us we are dealing with other real human beings, with real feelings, and therefore how to behave. Because human nature evolved to protect us from maiming and death in a much more dangerous environment, people react to verbal conflict as though it were a real, life-threatening attack. It isn't, and it can't be. The stakes on Wikipedia, what one can actually lose or suffer, are almost nil. Conflict and aggression on-wiki is just words; it is only virtual, not real, conflict and aggression. It is very easy to lose sight of that, especially for those who are conscientious. It is admirable to want to do good work here as a volunteer, but to do that effectively and without justifiably hurt feelings you can't let yourself take it too seriously. (I say this as one who takes most things too seriously.)

I hope you find peace in your blessed break, and then maybe some time to reflect on what all this is about. Then, very selfishly, I hope you will decide to return and continue to do what you have been doing here so well, but perhaps with less expectation of widespread appreciation (an all-too-rare commodity even in the real world) and less surprise that a tiny minority behave as badly, albeit only verbally, as they do.

Sincerely, Steve Finell (Talk) 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Speaking from a lifetime of professional experience, I can't imagine what you might have done on-wiki that could subject you to civil liability. Even in the unlikely event that some misguided soul actually sues you (threats are cheap, lawyers aren't), I expect that the Foundation would pay for your legal defense, and would indemnify you should the improbable and unthinkable occur.

Best wishes for whatever you do, here or elsewhere. Verbal chat 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Foundation legal policy "I expect that the Foundation would pay for your legal defense" hah! that's a good one. thanks, I needed a laugh =) –xenotalk 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Yup. The Foundation will kick you to the curb in a microsecond if they think you're a liability. You can go back as far back as the Video Professor case, and probably even earlier. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Steve, I agree with what you say about Luke and about most of WP working well, but regarding your last few points, there have indeed been real-life effects for a few Wikipedians (e.g. people whose employers have been contacted), and the Foundation is unlikely to pay for anyone's legal defence or indemnify anyone. We're legally responsible for our own edits, or at least that's the Foundation's position as I understand it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I have no knowledge of the Foundation's attitudes or practices, so I should not have presumed to guess what it would do. My speculation was based on my real world litigation experience involving large organizations, including non-profits. I would not expect the Foundation to defend editors who, on their own, publish libel, stalk people in the real world, or commit other actionable offenses. However, ArbCom members are, in substance, part of management, even if not employees, officers, or board members. If an Arbitrator is enforcing policy and behaving in a reasonable way, but is unreasonably sued in the course performing the "job", it would be reasonable and consistent with prevalent real world practices for the Foundation to provide a defense and, should it come to that, indemnification. I have no knowledge, as I said, of whether the Foundation does or will do what is reasonable to expect. I'm boldly moving all this to a subsection, so it won't detract from the other discussion. Finell (Talk) 20:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure this is germane, or...frankly, terribly important. CHL needs a break and we should give one freely. If you want you can bring this question up in a broader forum, but I don't know what you are going to get besides guesses from both camps. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I agree about what CHL needs and deserves, and I didn't intentionally raise this issue. If you want to move it off this page, either elsewhere or into the wastebasket, I'm fine with that. If you want to move it to my Talk page, or your talk page, that's OK too. I feel like I just got hit in the head by a swinging door. Finell (Talk) 21:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quorum

I couldn't resist myself in pointing out that with only eight active arbs, the committee is failing the quorum rules of the US SC which requires 50% plus one of the number of seats to be present to hold court. Happily Arbcom is exempt from such niceties. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to kick it to one of the the courts of appeal then, like how Judge Learned Hand decided the celebrated Alcoa antitrust case.

Oh, wait. Cool Hand Luke 15:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If only old 28 U.S.C. 321, (date omitted), 16 Stat. 44 at Ch. XXII, §1, (1869) was still valid law (I'm sure you know how hard it is to find the date of USC sections that were superseded so long ago they aren't even in the current notes). MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I misread the rules, it was set at 6, not 50%+1, so I guess we are safe. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Petty disputes among brittle people

Okay folks, move along. Risker (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If this refers to Case/Speed of light, I'd say that is what it looks like. However, my take is that Case/Speed of light is a remarkable example of things getting way out of hand, like milk suddenly boiling over. Although on the face of it the whole thing is stupid, it is a red flag that should not be ignored. The available tools to handle Case/Speed of light (bans and blocks) are inadequate. Maybe while you are taking a break you might think about possible systemic changes that could break the back of these destructive encounters. Somehow two problems must be faced: (i) escalation of a circus atmosphere and (ii) rigid defense of entrenched positions. I've presented some thoughts on these matters, and attempted very unsuccessfully to promote some discussion of guidelines, but I lack your expertise to see what might be done. Brews ohare (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think that he was referring to this particular case in his comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I don't believe he was referring particularly or primarily to the Speed of light parties; there are more serious things going on if you look at the other requested and pending arbitrations. However, many editors who find themselves in one dispute after another routinely accuse impartial volunteer Arbitrators of bias, conspiracy, or incompetence whenever an Arbitrator disagrees with their position or conduct, rather than reflect on their own behavior. Receiving these accusations, constantly and from so many parties in so many disputes, eventually take their toll on someone who is conscientious. And, CHL is right: on-wiki conflict is mostly "petty disputes among brittle people with no sense of proportion". Your response to CHL's personal anguish—arguing again your take on the Speed of light disputes and your ideas for institutional reform, which almost everyone who commented disagrees with (including admins and editors who had no prior dealings with you and no reason for bias against you)—reflects the extreme self-absorption, lack of self-examination, and disregard of others that is typical of those who are constantly in disputes here. Indeed, it is why they are constantly in disputes. It is not because they, or you, are always right, and everyone else is always wrong. They are their own worst enemies. Finell (Talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Some editors seems to see everything as related to the speed of light (That's a pun, by the way. Maybe) Verbal chat 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) My thought was that CHL might care to ponder over some broader issues that don't involve me or Finell. Brews ohare (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) He said as clearly as anyone can that he needs to get away from it all, not that he wants to work on Wikipedia's policies—especially when (1) he said that the problem is the troublesome people (which most everyone else agrees with) and (2) policy pages are hotbeds of the disputes and dramas that he said he needs to get away from. Finell (Talk) 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) No, I'm not referring to the speed of light dispute. Cool Hand Luke 13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits By Time and Date

I saw a neat picture you made, File:John254_and_Kristen_Eriksen.png, and was wondering how exactly you made it. Thanks! --Odie5533 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore my (now removed) text

I'm a bit dim. I didn't see your "break" notice. Please, I understand how shitty being involved in arb cases must be. I very much hope that you're okay, and that you manage to enjoy your time away. Kind Regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you come back

As an editor whose WP:BITE quote is prominently on my talk page, I thought you maybe interested in this, when you return:

When Netmouse signed up for the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members he mentioned this page:

• Wikipedia:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users‎
• Strategic Task Force on increasing reader contributions

Ikip (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you back

Nice to see you back. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am thrilled that you have returned. —Finell 23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion

Now that you are back... Can you take a look at the issues discussed here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, although I am sorry to hear that - your input was quite valuable in the past.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

recent comments

On 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) you wrote a response to another editor here. The editor said said he'd gone through a now-blocked/banned editor's recent diffs. Your reply mentioned an article that the blocked editor last edited in September, more than a month and well more than 100 edits before being blocked. It's reasonable to assume the commenting editor's scan of "recent edits" did not go back that far. I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as bitey, but that's how it looks :(. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It was also reasonable to assume that Hipocrite had some idea what he was talking about when he mentioned that the editor had worked on "pro-wrestling, Japanese manga and Child sexual abuse," and Timmeh's comment was bitey and probably deceptive. Timmeh's follow-up suggests that he doesn't really care what articles the editor was editing as long as the edits were "fine." Cool Hand Luke 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Noted"

Given the comparison has been "duly noted", I respectfully request you send an email to arbcom-l with this link. That will ensure everyone on the Committee sees it, not just yourself (it wasn't designed for your consumption solely, but rather everyone on the Committee).

I ask that you do this because I feel it would not be an acceptable use of my moderation-exemption to email myself. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not be resigning from ArbCom

I had earlier indicated some uncertainty as to whether I would remain on the Arbitration Committee, but I have now made up my mind.

Barring exceptional circumstances, I will not resign from ArbCom at the end of this year. I will manage Wikistress by taking longer breaks, as needed, like the month-long break I've recently emerged from.

I make this announcement to help remove uncertainty about the number of vacancies in the ArbCom 2009 elections (currently projected at 8). Cool Hand Luke 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2

Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:

• "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.

• "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.

• "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:

1. Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
2. Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
3. Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork *^YES! 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Hello Luke!

My name is Brandon and I'm an inexperienced wiki editor. I try to contribute positively to Wikipedia and its pages. I have some questions, based off your recent edits to a page.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement you made a revert stating, "A lot of unencyclopedic nonsense has been added to the article". A whopping 30% of the entire article was deleted. I was surprised, as I'm use to seeing smaller edits at a time. I try to learn from my mistakes, so that I can become a better editor. However your deletion of so much content was vague, it doesn't really tell me anything. You didn't reference any actual issues, so I'm unable to understand how to correct the mistakes. I appreciate your time and clarification, so that in the future I can make sure everything is "encyclopedic" enough, per the wiki standards.

Thank you friend!

Peace, brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo (talk • contribs) 04:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

calmness recommended

I appreciate your length and depth of involvement in Wikipedia, and the obvious passion that you have for it, and hope that continues. With that in mind, may I suggest that when you reach the point of posting "Has it occurred to you that I might have some idea what I'm talking about?" - particularly in a matter where the disagreement is largely one of perspective rather than facts - it may be time to take a WP:wikibreak? It's not the sort of statement that will generally move discussion forward. In my experience (and yours may differ), statements that come across as indignant demands for respect tend to have the opposite of the intended effect. So if you find your tensions running high at the moment, a break may be a good idea. (Of course, that's advice I'm better at giving than taking myself.) In any case, may you have a jolly holiday season. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An account to keep an eye on

[1] I'm notifying SirFozzie and Lar also. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cremepuff222 Is ArbCom considering action here or not?

It seems there is some grey area about ArbCom involvement in this. If you guys are already considering a desysop then the RFC is more or less moot. I'm not asking for details, just a general indication of whether or not we are just spinning our wheels with the RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Your comment was, regretably, correct.[2] Thanks for calling me out on that. I'll be sure from now on to always not assume that arguments from others are automatically true and check for myself. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

I was just pointed at this and reviewed the situation. On first inspection it seems like a clear violation of WP:BATTLE for Cla68 to have done all this. What are your thoughts? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making a laughingstock out of Wikipedia with edits like this[3], which retracted one of your edits, by the way. --AmishPete (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Luke, could you cast your eyes over this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rosatti (2nd nomination)? I have some BLP concerns; the subject is of marginal notability, and I am not confident that this is the sort of article this project is particularly well equipped to handle responsibly. --JN466 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're getting your history wrong, old man

[4] You used to call them VfDs. Steve Smith (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Commenting in the wrong section?

[5] ??? Cirt (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, appears to be other arbs as well. Why are they posting in the wrong sections Comments by others, and not posting in the sections for Comments by arbitrators??? Cirt (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! No worries, Cirt (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO they should refrain from doing so, due to confusion. Cirt (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

List of billionaires

- Mian Muhammad Mansha Yaha had been on the list for many months before Sunny deleted him. He had been listed for several months and nobody questioned why he was there until Sunny. I did not first add Mr Mansha to this list, so I do not appreciate you, Luke, calling me a Pakistani POV pusher. What evidence do you have to suggest so ? For whom do you speak ? Your comments are not merely unhelpful; they are downright dangerous. If you had fully read my previous comments then you would have known that I am keeping Mr Mansha out of this list for the near future. So why spontaneously produce insensitive comments when myself & Sunny were approaching accord ? I would expect higher standards from somebody who is an administrator. If you wish to keep your reputation pure, then I suggest that an apology be made so that our section may come to close. Sansonic (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

- At the time of re-submission his entry complied with Wikipedia's core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. As soon as somebody brought the issue to the talk pages I reconciled and agreed not to republish him, for the near future. At first you were saying that I was pushing a POV, now you are saying that you're unsure. To falsley accuse somebody of such actions could constitute personal attack. I do not wish to damage your reputation, therefore I ask you to either: rephrase your allegations, or give a simple apology (not a Non-apology). The latter option is easier and may even enhance your reputation by showing WP:CIVIL. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

- I have been advised that if you don not wish to withdraw your statement then I have the right to take this to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts board. However, I would prefer not to take things to this level. Therefore I recommend that you refrain from making such statements in the future. If you do not wish to apologise, then as a responsible editor myself I will have to continue to behave in grace. I wont force you to do anything you don't want to. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tone

You seem to be having a very hard time with this concept.

Cool Hand Luke, please adjust your tone, it is unbecoming of an arbitrator. Former Arbitrator Paul August (talk · contribs) has been much more kind, polite, and helpful in his tone while he has been explaining these concepts to me. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Query

I wish to modify My Plan per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse. I find that my mentors/advisers are not following the plan. I do not think all of them have read it. Further, several of my mentors/adisers are unavailable much of the time. They do not agree on how to implement the plan. I find that the plan is being used by a few FAC editors as a club to harass and punish me. I feel that I have improved my behavior subsequent to the arbitration, but I am being harasses for such things as making one editing mistake that I acknowledged and apologized for. My mentors are blocking me without warning, contrary to the plan, and they are not using the graduated measures specified in the plan, like voluntary wikibreaks first. What can I do to modify or remove the play? I find I cannot edit under the current plan. I believe if I were left to community enforcement like other editors, I would be able to edit it peace. I am being held to higher standards than others where even typos are held against me. Also, is it against my plan to express opinions in a civil way? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbdsy

He's at it again. He followed Giano to one of his palace articles, and proceeded to oppose him at every step. Now, he's dragged a dispute regarding a POINT-y "bounty" template that one of his cohorts placed on the talkpage to ANI. At what point does the fact that he harasses and baits in a calm tone become unacceptable? I'd much rather deal with someone who swears a little (or a lot) than someone like this, who seems almost passive aggressive in his actions. He runs to ANI like it's a parent or something. Scottaka UnitAnode 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Newt Winkler

Hello Cool Hand Luke. Newt Winkler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, GlassCobra 08:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you blocked Newt Winkler, and also his reincarnation as Gene Omission : 15:00, 28 February 2010 Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) blocked Gene Omission (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion: Returning banned user.) It seems he is back making the same reverts as user: Gnome Noises —Preceding unsigned comment added by My Canada (talk • contribs)

typos

A couple typos in Wikipedia_talk:Incivility_blocks#Frank_opinion confuse old guys like me: "must of" instead of "most of" (top paragraph) and "objection" stead of "objective." It's obvious what the intent is on a second or third read but mildly confusing at first. May I edit? Gerardw (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy

Hi, Cool Hand Luke. I respect your hard work to make the administrative stuff work out. Regarding some questions you had for David Tombe: I think that it is fair to say that you did broach the issue that Brews ohare was violating NOR policy in the original ArbCom case, and indirectly, by mentioning fringe views, you brought up the topic again on this recent discussion. That's an understandable mistake, considering how many fringe views you have to deal with every day. Regarding the physics of permittivity, the permmitivity constant becomes defined when the speed of light is defined, as Tombe alluded to you on his talk page. If you have further physics questions regarding this matter, I will be happy to answer them for you. Please do not discuss this with David Tombe further, since he could be easily goaded into accidentally violating his topic ban. Thanks.Likebox (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice, and I'm going to take it. Cool Hand Luke 16:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understood the permittivity issue. Tombe is prone to misrepresent everything I say,[6] which is why your advice of not interacting with him is good. Cool Hand Luke 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight proposal

Hi, Luke. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. User:Jimi 66, the originator, asked me whether he needed to advertise the proposal elsewhere. Does he? The talk page looks none too busy, and the proposal merits discussion. --JN466 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here to spam you as well. I suppose with two notices you can make a Spam sandwich! SilkTork *^YES! 10:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend Brews_ohare sanctions, or not

Can we wind this up? I think we need a motion, and arbitrators' final thoughts. Brews ohare (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance

Hello. I have sent you an email regarding the above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you've any thoughts on my email. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

just curious

re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Herostratus / Viridae, just wondering: why are you recused? Do I know you? Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Whatever the reason

Without a link or some other indication of why and how the conclusion was reached that they are a sock, I really didn't know what to tell them when responding to their unblock request. Perhaps you could clarify for both our sakes? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note

POV pusher supreme on Chavez articles; one of the reasons I stopped editing them. Impossibly tendentious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, none of his original uncited research survived FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as his history of Russia articles read like Soviet apologetics, I'm not surprised that he was a POV pusher elsewhere as well. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Gene Omission is requesting an unblock

They claim to have no connection to the linked accounts. Since I am having a hard time weeding through the diffs from both accounts, could you post, on his talk page, the connection (either CU evidence or behavioral evidence in the form of diffs) which show the connection, so I can intelligently respond to his request? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Infelicitous wording?

Hey Cool Hand Luke, I noticed this comment of yours (the first one) at the ChildofMidnight Arb case. It made me chuckle because I'm not sure you actually meant to say "Article talk pages, in particular, should not be forums for repeated attacks against another editor. There are other venues for that." I suppose there are other venues where repeated personal attacks happen but of course we don't want to encourage that! I'm guessing what you meant was that problems with other editors should not be discussed on article talk pages, though of course even on the appropriate forums they should not devolve into a blizzard of personal attacks. Not a huge deal of course, but as worded it kinda seems to say "if you're gonna really lay into someone, for god's sake do it on WP:ANI like a proper gentleman!" so you might want to adjust it a bit. Or you could leave it, because it is semi-hilarious. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recusal

Hi there CHL - I see you've recused because of my role[7] - Could you elaborate please? Hope you're well by the way. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I thought. Honestly, please don't recuse on my behalf - I hold you in high regard and I certainly have no resentment against you being elected. I was clearly in the wrong in the election - you've been a fine arbitrator. I hate to think you feel that you have to recuse because you think I have a problem with you - I honestly don't, quite the opposite in fact. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed

Hi Luke. I never disagreed with your actions before but your vote in the Trusilver case seems almost out of character. I am disappointed. And I am even more disappointed because I found your initial abstention comments concerning AE enforcement and the second block simply brilliant. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I really liked the analogy. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Truesilver comment

You switched to supporting the motion with a comment that you think another motion to clarify AE review process is needed.

I replied in the "Meta" section at the bottom - IMHO, Any of AE, WT:AE, ANI, or AN would work, and all have been used at times in the past. Do we need more instruction creep specifying what venue to use and how? The problem in this case was that no attempt at review was made, not that a proper venue could be found...

Perhaps it's a real problem, but didn't seem so to me.

Anyways, that's my two cents, other than that I hope you have a good day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about User:Will Beback/TM tables

I can't recall every article that I included when I was tallying the edits last month, but you're right that I used Soxred93's Top Namespace Edits tool. I've created a list of relevant articles that are either in Category:Transcendental Meditation movement or are directly related to the topic and placed it at User:Will Beback/TM tables#Related articles.   Will Beback  talk  19:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Your TM workshop printout

Very interesting. Your printout shows the pattern much more clearly than a link to the Soxred tool for the IP ranges. Durova⁴¹² 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Cool Hand Luke. Since Elonka's latest accusation seems to have especially influenced you [8] (although you kindly seem to be reluctant), please kindly check my response to it [9]. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Craig Bolerjack

Hello Cool Hand Luke, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Craig Bolerjack has been removed. It was removed by Ute in DC with the following edit summary '(remove proposed deletion tag — enough notability for proper sources and will start working on it)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ute in DC before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Franco-Mongol alliance

Hiya, at the FMA amendment, FYI, perhaps it's better to use {{user|Per Honor et Gloria}} instead of {{user|PHG}}, to ensure that it's understood about his name change? --Elonka 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1

You signed up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That obnoxious guy again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.77.255.16. Same as GregK204 (talk · contribs), 139.142.235.42 (talk · contribs) et al. Page protection? Cheers, RCS (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And again still

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marc_Garlasco&action=historysubmit&diff=355201562&oldid=353682137. Unbelievable!--RCS (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please sign ya name...

I believe that this may have been you. Can you please go back and sign your name, so that editors can see it isn't just some anon IP making the comments. Thanks, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Email Correspondence

Hi, I received your email, and responded Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3.1

Have you heard about Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3.1. We could use someone like you to speak about your WP experiences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Encyclopedia of Mormonism.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wikileaks" is on probation; can it be taken off?

Hi, CHL, I'm asking you direct because I'm not sure where to go, and you're an arbiter. The Wikileaks article is currently on probation, I think because it has a passing reference to climate change. This is unfortunate, because, as has been noted on the talk page, this is a bit daunting and the article does need some work. Can it be take off probation? Or where should I ask? Thank you. cojoco (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#How can I get Wikileaks off climate change probation?. This is a thorny question and I am honestly not sure how to handle it just now. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to remove it, and Polargeo has done so. Thanks! cojoco (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Common's admins

Hi CHL. What is the process for arbitration with multiple Common's admins? Would be willing to discuss details by email. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I told, by a Commons admins, is that they only police themselves. While they are all unified accounts, the dispute is on Commons and seemingly not part of what ArbCom is able to deal with. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BP etc

I have noticed over the last two weeks a consistent rediting of the pages for BP and Tony Haward, CEO of Bp that would suggest that the company is involved in trying to manage their public profile on Wikipedia by removing dozens of refernced posting which refer to problems in their past or public statements by managers. Particularly an editor Willking1979 seems to have been responsible for dozens of these edits. A number of other aliases seem to be consistently appearing and then vanishing to support the suppression of any news or information outside of BP's PR mechanism about the ongoing events in the gulf of Mexico. What is the policy of Wikipedia on consultant firms being paid for ongoing mass editing of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.197.25 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To 173.55.197.25: If you add remarks derived from unreliable sources they will be deleted. This has nothing to do with BP's PR mechanism and everything to do with Wikipedia policy. If you find a reliable source for your edits (not a blog), then they will not be reverted. As someone who reverted many of your edits, I can assure you that I have nothing to do with BP (please check my contributions if you doubt this). Ericoides (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't spiraling out of control. Admins are stepping up and resolving it. The sky is not falling and there is no need for panic. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What's actually happening is that Polargeo is unable to accept that Lar is considered by most to be uninvolved for the purposes of this probation, and he also believes the probation itself should be abolished, so he's been disrupting the probation and provoking Lar for the last month. Now Hipocrite is reporting Lar for simply trying to stop Polargeo's disruption. And Lar once again is in the position of defending himself even though he did nothing wrong. All in a day's work for an admin on the CC probation. ATren (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that most of that is misrepresentation, especially Lar is considered by most to be uninvolved. H has reported this, spin-free, to CHL and that was Good. Adding your own interpretation is not obviously useful William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I'm recused from both proposed cases. I will not lobby privately on this matter, and I don't intend to comment on it publicly, unless an over-reaction is credibly proposed by ArbCom. Even if this were not so, I don't need to have the events interpreted for me. Cool Hand Luke 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobel of X

Please take a look at the proposal I made in Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field to ensure the future quality of the list. Your comments would be much appreciated :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 06:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

White Horse Prophecy

I realized yesterday that there isn't any article on the White Horse Prophecy. It seems to me that this page ought to exist, but before I just jump in and try to create a stub, I'd be interested in feedback from you as to what points to touch, how to get it listed properly on the project page, etc. Richwales (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the White Horse Prophecy article (tagged as a stub), wikilinked to it from Rex Rammell, and submitted it for DYK consideration. If there are additional steps to be taken, please let me know. Richwales (talk) 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac:SPI

Wow. I had begun to think that that this SPI was going to fall by the wayside for lack of interest. Regardless of what happens, thank you for the time you put into this. And with charts, too! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sad thing is, most of his work is valuable: it is just that someone needs to be constantly following him to clean up articles and categories (both creation and tagging) of his which are just, well, crap. If others are willing to devote themselves to doing that, he is definitely a net gain. If not, then the mess will just grow. I am really not sure what is the best course at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mac-Nu summer 2008.png

Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Mac-Nu.png

Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mac-Nu summer 2008.png

Thank you for uploading File:Mac-Nu summer 2008.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mac-Nu.png

Thank you for uploading File:Mac-Nu.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Luke, I'm not exactly sure if this has been ok'd or not but please read this. The user says he is a banned user under a new account name to make good edits and to give him a chance. If this editor hasn't gone through the proper channels to start anew then this account should be blocked and the editor advised on how to proceed to get his privelidges returned the correct way. I just want to bring this to your attention in case you were not aware of this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi again, I just want you to know I responded to you at my talk page. Thank you very much in advance. I hope you are able to block all the sock drawers that are now open. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first I want to thank you for doing a CU on this. I would like for you to take a moment when you have time to see the comments made since you addressed this SPI case. It would really be appreciated if you would comment to the comments made. (Try saying that three times fast. :) ) The main questions being asked is blocking both of the named accounts (one has be blocked already but one still needs to be blocked), the duck questions and finally whether there can be a range block done to the IP's. Thanks again and I look forward to hearing more from you in the near future. I know you are still learning the procedures there but don't feel alone on that, so am I. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I just noticed this. Since you did the CU I thought you should know there was a discussion going on. Be well Luke, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Informing you of arbcom case

There is an arbcom case which relates to a recent SPI you were involved in as a checkuser Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A huge thanks

I want to effusively thank you for blocking Closeminded8 [10] [11]. I went to bed last night thinking, "Oh crap, I will have to work up a SPI case on this. He's out of control", dreading the work involved, only to get up today and see that you went ahead. Thank you so much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: SockPuppets of MsGanda

im NOt a sockpuppets of MsGanda, it doesn't mean if we always edit the same Page is we are sockpuppets of each other, we don't know each other i don't know his/her name, i don't know everything about his/hers identity... we don't know each other... don't be fooled by detractors of mine because they want me out of wikipedia so that they can vandalize the page/pages i editing... so please help me because they are eager to remove me here... thanks & Godspeed... --Knight Crawler X (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tech Talk Event / Vérité certifié

Hi, you mentioned that User:Vérité certifié may not have violated 3RR, but if Tech Talk Event is his sock, then the following three reverts were made by the same user within a 24 hour period:

• 17:54, June 5, 2010 Vérité certifié (talk | contribs) m (11,938 bytes) (Undid revision 366157854 by Noraft (talk) Mr. Bogoljub Karic biography contributed over a number of years have received major cut down to minimum.)
• 18:49, June 5, 2010 Vérité certifié (talk | contribs) m (11,938 bytes) (Undid revision 366172254 by Noraft (talk) Editors are cautioned not to exhibit ownership Behavior over this page!)
• 14:45, June 6, 2010 Tech Talk Event (talk | contribs) (11,938 bytes) (Undid revision 366205863 by Torchiest (talk) Important information on Mr. B Karic reverted. The Karic Family page with link to BK perhaps.)

ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw your message on my talk page. I'm curious as to why you didn't impose a sanction on Vérité certifié (or even warn him) for violating policy by using a sock. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI

A reminder that all comments should be added before the horizontal bar, which functions as a separator between cases, and not after. Tim Song (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Need of Oversight

Queen Elizabeth Secondary School needs oversight. There was a stabbing there a few years back by minors and their name are protected by Canadian Law. Some user posted their names, and since they are minor those names are protected under Canadian law and wikipedia is libel if it stays up. Thanks.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The names have been removed, but they are still available in the history. I doubt that those were the real name as I'm thinking it was just vandalism. Regardless, if those are the real names wikipedia is violating Canadian Law. So it's better to be safe then sorry.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Distressed

Dear Coolhandluke, I hope that you understand that I have also been very distressed by the edits of Captain Occam and his girlfriend. It's not particularly pleasant when a user who has never had any contact with me, suddenly comes out with an attack [12][13][14][15][16] on WP:ANI because her boyfriend has asked her to do so. If you have any other interpretation of her actions, I would be pleased to hear. But please do not leave emotionally charged messages on my talk page, assuming that I, as a fairly normal and careful contributor of long standing, am not myself quite upset by the machinations of a little group of wikipedians who openly flout the usual rules for participating in this encyclopedia building exercise. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clarifying that. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen

Just read your talk page, Good grief! You have my admiration for hanging in here!

UPDATE: for recent activity by SRQ go here: [17]

Best Wishes to you, brave soul. Shalom DocOfSoc (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well a couple of us were just chatting at my talk page about this and whether you had any pull with another CU to finish up the SPI case that is about the socks being used by SRQ. She is now bold enough to come at editors with threats, nastiness and a lot of uncivil behavior at the dif that DocOfSoc shares with you above. Something needs to be done to stop this behavior, please. She was nasty when she was here on her account and the community agreed that she was not a good editor for this site. Now she is using roaming IP's to do the nastiness. There has to be a way to stop or at least slow this down. Any ideas? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

External sites

As far as I am aware, I have only indicated external entries in blogs in the ArbCom case pages and this only when explicit references to wikipedia articles and edits appear. I believe that other editors have clicked the links that Captain Occam left on his user page and discovered his own statements about wikipedia and race and intelligence on his external website; these comments have appeared a long while back on WP and I think even on WP:ANI. Both users concerned had openly revealed who they were on WP. If a user requests help with editing a controversial article on wikipedia on an external website from a particular point of view, that is a cause for concern. David.Kane has done so. On June 1 and 10, with users appearing from nowhere, although I have no proof, it does not seem unlikely that there was some kind of off-wiki messaging. No other days were like this. The subject matter "race and intelligence" is discussed off-wiki openly on various forums, some of them fairly extreme. When anonymous IPs appear out of the blue to make single edits on an obscure article - for example here[18] and here[19] - it's very hard to believe that some sort of off-wiki communication is not happening. I have no idea who or what it involves, just that it is a way of destabilizing the editing environment. The same sort of thing happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Selleri, where I participated; it later transpired that there were at least three sockpuppet accounts in action, one of them, Mister Collins aka Gregory Clegg, filing an SPI behind the scenes. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sock puppetry ?

• Hi,

In my research on Wikipedia, I think I have found sock puppet accounts.Take a look at these articles.:

• Eurogrand EG8180-RD
• Eurolive B1800X PRO
• Eurolive VS1220

They are all written today, in same way, in same formatting style, all about musical instruments written like advertisement.Though they all are created by different users.I think those are all sock puppet accounts.You should take action quickly.Those users are:

• User:Mackyquilala
• User:Musicrave
• User:Midori sama

Thanks and please reply.RegardsMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Movement

Hi,
do you know anything about The Zeitgeist Movement and Zeitgeist: the Movie? I was approached about an alleged COI of Falcon2112 (talk · contribs) who started editing there. I don't know the first thing about it, but noticed that you edited the talk pages of both articles, so I thought I'd ask if you could look into it? Doesn't appear to be clear cut, it's my impression that Falcon2112 certainly has a point about removing most of the external links.
Cheers, Amalthea 11:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have I been engaging in advocacy?

Cool Hand Luke,

I would appreciate it if you could respond to what I’ve said in my comments here, particularly the first one, about the claim that I’ve been engaging in advocacy on the race and intelligence article. Assuming the principles of past ArbCom ruling apply here also, single-purpose accounts are only topic banned if they’re engaging in advocacy on the articles that they focus on, so if you think a topic ban is an appropriate course of action in my case, it seems you’re of the opinion I’ve been doing this. But you haven’t explained why you think this is the case, and nobody has challenged my explanation (either in that thread or in the evidence I’ve presented) of why I consider my overall pattern of contributions to be consistent with trying to keep the article neutral. If arbitrators are going to make this assumption about me, I think it’s important for me to understand what it’s based on.

In order for me to explain why this is so important to me, I think you should understand a little about the history of this claim. It’s been made several times over the past few months, usually in the AN/I threads where Mathsci has tried to get me topic banned, but every time I’ve asked for recent examples or diffs of my engaging in advocacy, none have been presented. The justifications that are provided for this claim are usually based on things I’ve written outside Wikipedia, or based on a non-specific claim that I’m trying to advance the hereditarian hypothesis, or in one case someone just posted a diff of the previous month’s worth of edits to the article talk page, and refused to be any more specific than that. The lack of any specific evidence about how I’ve been engaging in advocacy is the main reason why there these threads have never reached a consensus for me to be topic banned, despite how many times it’s been proposed. The problem I have with this assumption about me is that since none of the people accusing me of advocacy have ever provided specific examples of me editing Wikipedia articles non-neutrally, if I’m doing something wrong I actually don’t know what it is. And I would like to know, because if my edits are contrary to NPOV policy I’d like to remedy that, which won’t be possible for me without knowing what I’m doing wrong.

Assuming it is the case that my edits have been contrary to NPOV, if arbitrators could provide me with a specific explanation of which recent edits of mine have had been examples of this as well as why, I would welcome the advice and make an effort to avoid similar problems in the future. Can you understand why I would consider it unfair for me to be topic banned when I’ve never been given that opportunity, either by arbitrators or anyone else? --Captain Occam (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Finding of fact

Cool Hand Luke,

I’ve noticed from your comment on the proposed finding of fact about me that you need some time to think over whether or not it’s accurate. If you haven’t already, I would appreciate you looking at my comments here about some possible problems with this finding of fact, as well as the more general concerns I raised here about “tag teaming” being considered a type of sanctionable conduct. I feel that in the first thread, Roger Davies has been somewhat evasive about addressing the concerns I raised there. Perhaps you’ll disagree with my interpretation of this, but I still think it’s important that these threads be considered when you’re evaluating the finding of fact about me and the associated proposed remedy.

Thanks in advance. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I appear to be badgering you about this, but if you have doubts about the accuracy of the finding of fact about me, it would probably be best for you to express them ASAP. Depending on how long you take to examine these situations, the decisions about me may end up just passing without your input. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't been evasive and I've not only answered many of your very long posts but almost completely reviewed the FoF and revised it. This has been an extremely busy week/ten days for me on several fronts and, to be honest, you have had far more than your fair share of my time.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

When I referred to you being evasive, I was referring specifically to the fact that you never tried to respond to what I was saying about how none of the diffs in your FoF about me involved me claiming consensus for specific versions of the article. Two of the diffs involved me claiming consensus for general ideas about what topics the article should cover, one of those two claims is verifiably accurate (and I linked to the page on which it can be verified), and the third does not involve me claiming the existence of a consensus at all. I brought this up with you several times, and each time you responded to other parts of my comments, but not to this.

Anyway, it’s not like this especially matters anymore, because it looks like your FoF about me is going to pass with or without CHL’s input. But I’m not going to pretend I’m not disappointed in you, because I am. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom "evidence" on a userpage.

Hey Cool Hand Luke, just wanted to ask for your advice in resolving a dispute between users Verbal and Abd. It began when Verbal asked that an admin fully protect Abd's subpage which he had just blanked; it had previously contained a link to a prior revision which contains a draft which was submitted to a now closed ArbCom case. Here's a thread on ANI if you want to read up a bit more, as well as on my and Verbal's talk pages. Abd also commented on the request for protection here, explaining the situation. I had taken action based on Abd's evidence and fully protected his revision, but Verbal's insistence that it was never submitted as evidence (despite Abd's link proving that it was?) made me think that maybe I'm missing something, since I haven't been around for two years and even back when I was active I wasn't involved in any ArbCom cases. I was hoping you could lend me a hand? Cheers, · Andonic ^Contact 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

History-merging

• Do you still do any history-merging now? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ID info

Lar has my identifying information, name, place of employment, etc. I provided it to him with the understanding that it would not be shared with anyone else without my explicit permission due to personal safety concerns. He can verify that I am not Minor4th, and that Minor4th and I are friends IRL. Right now I do not see that ArbCom has a need for this information, and I'm not willing to compromise my personal safety just because it would be nice to know. If I were to provide it to any member(s) of ArbCom, it would only be to selected members, with a guarantee of confidentiality and non-disclosure, even to other ArbCom members. I'm not trying to be offensive, but the Hell's Angels have a saying, and about this, it is right - "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead." It is not needed at this time by anyone else but Lar. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference: Lar is an involved party to this case, and insofar as the concept of "sides" is useful, I'd regard him as being on M4th / GJP's. Or, put it another way, I don't trust him, and don't regard anything he says in verification on GJP as valid William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Encyclopedia of Mormonism.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Encyclopedia of Mormonism.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 07:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, back when contributed to Wikipedia was fun. Thanks for deleting that ancient history, Skier Dude. Cool Hand Luke 03:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)