Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
User talk:Sam Blacketer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Sam Blacketer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


Archived material has been removed to User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 1-50 (09:41, 13 March 2007), User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100 (10:48, 28 April 2007), and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 101-200 (18:42, 13 October 2007). Sam Blacketer 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Sam, Xenophrenic is displaying all the classic traits of article ownership and tendentious editing. He has reverted, in whole, the contributions and edits of three separate users in the past 24 hours. He is also began using (as he did in his prior apparition) a rather disingenuous technique to get material out of the article by removing it from the main space, and "taking it to talk" where it will never be allowed back into the article. I dont want thsi to go to arbitration again, but it looks like it may haev to. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychophobia(band)

Yo man y did u delete my article? Theres nothin wrong with it! and answer me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handre13 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on User talk:Handre13. Sam Blacketer 21:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sack of Palermo

Your refusal for the speedy deletion of The Sack Of Palermo truly amazes me. If you consider the copying of ONE paragraph out of ONE book that writes 10 pages on the subject sufficient context you set your standards very low. The article does not give any context. If you would have cared to do a search [1] on the issue, you would have found more relevant context. - Mafia Expert 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:137.44.1.200

The Swansea Uni IP has caused more vandalism, this time to Shirley,_West_Midlands. You were the last admin to leave a warning (last week). I left a tag, thought'd you might want to do something else. Artlondon 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SpigotMap

ǔHello Sam,

Another admin (not Jpgordon) has already taken this issue up with me. If you wish to participate (and by all means, please do) then please read SpigotMap's entire user page, which currently consists of nothing but this exact "dispute." If you were to read that page, you would discover the other admin already reviewing this, plus a large amount of dialogue between me, spigotmap, and other editors. Until you can ask more specific questions related to this I ask that you please not operate in a vacuum here. Please respond on my talk page as well or on SpigotMap's, which is quickly becoming a centralized place to coordinate this. Additionally, if you read WP:3RR you will find that you do not have to specifically revert 3 times in 24 hours to qualify as breaking the rule. Please inform yourself then by all means join the discussion here as we try to resolve this situation. Thank you Triddle 20:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Sam,
I think it's really funny that you directly contradicted the 3RR rule as the reason for unblocking SpigotMap. Let me just point out how:
From 3RR: The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.
Your comment on SpigotMap's talk page: Your conduct there in removing significant chunks of text was disruptive even if it did not break the three revert rule.
You have also just been gamed.
Don't worry about me though, I'm done with this. After watching SpigotMap convince two other editors to unblock him, and after both of those editors seemingly did so with out any understanding of the actual rules or block processes, I've elected to voluntarily renounce my adminship because I'm simply tired of people undoing my hard work. Triddle 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And I have urged you to reconsider. I often enforce on three revert rule reports at the noticeboard and it is a difficult and stressful job. The key issue though, as with all blocks, is not whether a user is appropriately punished for transgressing the rules, but whether action is needed to prevent disruption. If there is no reason to suspect disruption then it is not appropriate to block. In this case, when SpigotMap was unblocked, he did not rush back to revert DSLink; therefore there is no reason to suppose that he intends to edit disruptively. Sam Blacketer 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sam. I assure you I will stay away from DSLink, I'll let the Wikipedia community decide on that. SpigotMap 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
therefore there is no reason to suppose that he intends to edit disruptively - Nothing except his own words as logged on the very talk page you said you read and his past and present editing behavior. It's enough for me, not enough for you I suppose. whatever, it doesn't mater. Triddle 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Zen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion corrections

I didn't revert the refusal of the speedy on Terrri Summers. The speedy was first rejected because I didn't tag it quite right. So I fixed that. What else should I have done? If there's a rule against correcting a defective request, I'd love to see it cited. You really ought to apologize for your careless remark and review the request on its merits. Your assumption that I had mindlessly reverted violates WP:AGF, doesn't it, especially since just checking the diffs on your second edit shows I'd put the appropriate tag on. VivianDarkbloom 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Arthur Cecil Allen, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On October 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Cecil Allen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoeg

Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has returned from the 48hr 3RR block and immediately launched in to personal attacks against me, and reverting articles back to represent his own Vanicek-centric POV and refs to himself. I've agreed with User:Athaenara to not react right away, but would appreciate if you would at least issue him some kind of warning. See User_talk:Athaenara#The_Geoeg_problem. Dicklyon 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thanks

Dear Sam Blacketer, 
 ______  __                       __                               __     
/\__  _\/\ \                     /\ \                             /\ \    
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___      __      ___\ \ \/'\   __  __    ___   __  __\ \ \   
   \ \ \ \ \  _ `\  /'__`\  /' _ `\ \ , <  /\ \/\ \  / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \  
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ 
     \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
      \/_/  \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/  \/___/   \/_/
                                                /\___/                    
                                                \/__/                     


For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radoviš

69.143.232.238 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is continuing to revert there, without explanations, after his block expired. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And the ip continues to revert. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Repeat Offender (Band)

Why would you assume that they do not assert significance? the page is of poor quality because i did very little work on it and intended to finish it in the morning. If you think that Repeat Offender assert no significance, why dont you ask any one of their 12650 myspace friends or any of the thousands of people that have seen them live? To me, releasing 3 EP's with an album due out later this year, they deserve some recognition. If you are willing to reply i will continue to argue my case. They deserve some recognition, and if im in charge, they'll get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repeatoffender4031 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it passes criterion 4 & 6. They did a US tour as a support act for the Veronica's. Ryan Wilson and Steven Childs are ex-members of ARIA winning boy band, Boystar.

[edit] Danke

Thank you for reverting him on my user page. I've indef-blocked him as a vandal-only account. -Jéské(v^_^v) 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Soldier Investigation Talk Page

Sam Blacketer: Please review the edit war on the Winter Soldier Investigation Talk Page. I am one of the parties to it. I wish to have the talk page not refactored every five minutes. It is confusing and it does not lead to a reasonable discussion. Just confusion and mischaracterization of people's positions. Do you have any suggestions?--JobsElihu 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a few.
Don't use the Article Talk page to post 1000+ word discussions on what is and isn't civility. Try the WP:Civility talk page.
Don't take my discussions with you on various Wikipedia editing standards and practices, and copy-paste them from your Talk page into the Talk pages of articles. Try just inserting a link to the huge conversation, instead of flooding the page reserved for discussion of article edits.
Don't continually replace huge blocks of text about rules, editors and generally anything else not relevant to the Article after it has been moved to a more appropriate place like a User Talk page. Again, if you feel it is necessary to refer to the off-topic stuff, do so with a link, instead of burying the relevant comments in spam.
Just my 2 cents. Xenophrenic 00:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Xeno: You do not own the article. And you do not own the talk page. You are constantly editing my comments. That is why they are long. You will not just leave my comments alone. You are constantly reverting things that I say concerning my own opinion. After you edit my own words I don't even recognize what I said! I have to go to you to have you explain to me what I thought and what I said. It is against Wikipedia rules to edit other people's comments. But yet you are constantly doing it. Also, you also demean everything that I say. I have asked you to stop and yet you constantly demean, mock, ridicule, belittle anything and everything that I state. If you are not demeaning it then you are editing it and putting words in my mouth. For example, I have never, ever used the word "liar" but you have accused me of saying it at least four times. Please stop the edit war on the talk page. If you can't refrain from engaging in an edit war on the talk page how can you refrain from an edit war in the actual article. I think that TDC is correct in that you are the anon editor with an Earthlink account that who was involved in an ArbCom case on the WSI article about a year ago. You are refusing to engage in a reasonable discussion--just constantly editing my comments, removing my comments, moving my comments around, etc. It is unreasonable and it violates the norms of civility. Please stop.--JobsElihu 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Enough clutter here, JobsElihu. I've responded on your talk page. Xenophrenic 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I do not care where you have responded. That is just another tactic to control the conversation. You do not want others to review your work. Wikipedia is a collaborative work and I will bring in others to discuss the WSI article and I will bring in others to discuss how the WSI article can be more collaborative. I started this discussion on Sam Blacketer's talk page with Sam Blacketer, not you. You have butted into this conversation and attempted to high-jack it either my talk page or your talk page. It was supposed to be a discussion between myself and Sam Blacketer, but you have not even waited long enough to allow him to respond to me. My conversation with Sam Blacketer will stay right here, thank you.--JobsElihu 03:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Could I just point out that all this discussion went on through the night while I was sleeping? 00:10 GMT is 1:10 AM British summer time (which we are still on for a fortnight). I will have a look at the talk page to see if any behaviour rules have been broken but I am not inclined to intervene. Sam Blacketer 09:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Responded again on your talk page so that Sam won't be able to review my work. Xenophrenic 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School

Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St peter is a rabbit

Hey, the user has recreated the page. Would you mind swinging by and deleting it again? The guy hasn't done quite enough to earn a block, but I certainly wouldn't lament if he got it anyway. GlassCobra 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The same guy has also created Aliensvortex‎, also tagged with a CSD. Thanks. GlassCobra 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Redspruce

Would you like me to revert my last revert back? Do you think I was being unreasonable? Sure, no problem. The text that I was relying on was as follows:

f you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I don't actually have a specific preferred version for the page. The episode was ugly and involved a lot of what we call today "the politics of personal destruction". The bottom line is that Bentley was eventually vindicated because otheer people and independent documents backed up what she said and those old charges need to be put in context in her biographical article. So far, two entirely different formulas were conceived to do that. RedSpruce was reverting both of them. TMLutas 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you put in a final result of 3 hours. Any particular reason for 3? This is actually my first 3RR and I'd like to see your reasoning, to understand things better. TMLutas 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed the incident explanation before. Thanks for the comment on my talk page.
Regarding the whole spy business, one can take several approaches to balancing the attacks against Bentley with their eventual refutation by external evidence. When the careful, balanced, gentle attempts are rebuffed because there's too much material on other people, accommodation either means you let the slanders remain unanswered or you shorten it up a lot. When that happens, nuance goes out the window. RedSpruce was complaining about an excess of nuance, then appalled when nuance was removed in favor of brevity. Like I said earlier, one can manage the discrediting of discreditable accusations in lots of different ways. Pick one and I'm happy. TMLutas 17:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Murphy

I've added a comment to Talk:Jim Murphy, which I hope may help move this article forward. I'd be grateful if you'd look at it and if necessary add comments. Grblundell 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Thanks for the award Sam, I would say though that the new Regiment categories were created by User:Necrothesp. I've just been helping out by populating some of them Kernel Saunters —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Balfour

Updated DYK query On 20 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Balfour, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 22 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyril Banks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for helping out with REVERT WAR!!! Although, after two blocks already today, I fear they'll just create another account and start again. ObfuscatePenguin 09:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Fort

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

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The royal blackmail scandal

I appreciate you may have strong feelings about this but would it not be better to leave the contentious material out of the article until consensus is reached? I should also inform you of the three revert rule which means that you should not keep readding the mention and undoing the work of other editors in removing it. If you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period you may well be blocked from editing. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect as I don't have particular strong feelings regarding this article of David Linley. I merely suggest that censorship is not appropriate. Linley will always have a footnote that he was (rightly or wrongly) named in this instance - only time will tell. However there is no currency in waiting for the final answer - it may be years until this is resolved. Linley has been named, this is irretrievable; official confirmation is not the standard, many articles have facts that the subject denies eg OJ SimpsonROxBo 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hiding breaking rule..

Look at this user how he wants to cover up things.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=168551129&oldid=168550642 --Moldorubo 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice please...

I saw your recent comments on WP:AN/I about {{blp}}. I am taking the liberty of writing you because I am concerned by what seems to me to be a serious discrepancy between WP:VER, WP:NPOV and an interpretation of WP:BLP.

I don't know how new this interpretation of {{blp}} is. It is new to me. Some of the volunteers who have taken on patrolling the wikipedia for violations of {{blp}} interpret reporting allegations, even from official sources, as violations of {{blp}}. One of these patrollers has argued that unless the allegations can be "proven" to be true, by referencing independent third party sources, reporting the allegations violates {{blp}}, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR.

I pointed out that the very first line of WP:VER states that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth".

Verifiability is an easy standard to try to comply with. "Truth" is a difficult standard to try to comply with. Aiming to only include material that is true, requires deviation from WP:NPOV.

Well, I won't repeat all the argument and counter-argument.

The advice I would like concerns how to determine whether this interpretation of {{blp}} really is considered valid, and whether, it should trump WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard, with little meaningful response. And I raised it on WP:AN/I, with mixed results.

Thanks! Geo Swan 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on User talk:Geo Swan. Sam Blacketer 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity talkpage cleanup

Hi I guess you were the admin who deleted the Talk:Mormonism and Christianity archives that I tagged for speedy deletion. There was one archive that was off, so the entire series of archives is off by one digit. I was wondering if you could please move the set of archives all up one notch. At 16 archives they have quite a lengthy set of archives so I though they might be better off with more automated archival, but I think they need to be in line to start this. - Optigan13 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I spotted that and did it already - you may want to recheck. Sam Blacketer 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you just got the tail one (#16), but the zero archive is still there in the first position. I was hoping to move all the archives to current # + 1. I tried to do it myself, but every page move I try to pull creates a redirect that I can't overwrite. Should I just do a series of cut & paste moves to correct for this? - Optigan13 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No, don't do cut and paste moves. I assumed that archive 13 was the one out of sync. Sam Blacketer 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Now sorted. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - Optigan13 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Housekeeping?

What does Housekeeping mean? Why is the article under the worlwide known name of f.Y.R.O.M. Country redirected to "Republic of Macedonia" (a name recognized by 123 countries in the world) causing comfussion to the reader?--Dimorsitanos 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page. Sam Blacketer 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus? Who took part in this consensus? You mean more readers recognized the second name ubiquitus than the first? This seems odd since as I already mentioned according to the so far case 123 countries have officially accepted the second name while all the rest countries of the world seem confused with this name! Is there a poll I can take part into? How did this consensus work? And what does the term "housekeeping" mean?--Dimorsitanos

  • Which is the best way to redirect an article whithout losing the GFDL? Talk to the administration?

--Dimorsitanos 18:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions

  • I saw an article named "Aegean Macedonia". What does this term mean? I am a greek citizen and I have never heard of a term like this. What does Aegean Sea have to do with Macedonia? On what base does the wikipedia community accepts such a term (and article)? Unless if the wikipedia community is constituted mainly by fyromians but if so, it wouldn't be the english but the fyromian version of the wikipedia (and if so, i would like this to be confirmed to me so that I don't contribute to this version). The map of the article correctly depicts the macedonian periphery of Greece, which is part of the wide macedonia peninsula. On that argument I would like to ask of you to redirect this article under another widely accepted term.
  • Why do you predispose me not to try argue on that article before trying? This seems as denotation of biase.
  • I didn't understand what you meant whith the last sentence. Is there another article titled as "FYROM" for the pleasure of the greek community? or just the quotation of the greek ministry's accepted name on the main article?

--Dimorsitanos 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answers Absent

Hi. I read some parts of the page-discussion. Still, is there another administrator to whom I may pose my questions and expect an answer at the same time beside Black and Decker? Pending on a reply when noticed. Thank You. Mr--Dimorsitanos 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Delfouneso

The majority of people at WP:FOOTY would seem to disagree with your assertion that an Under-17 call-up confers notability upon a subject, but we shall see. Feel free to comment on the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Ofori-Twumasi. - PeeJay 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long overdue!

The 25 DYK Medal
Awarded to Sam Blacketer (rather belatedly) for his exceptional contributions to Did You Know? Thanks to your efforts, dozens of MPs not only have articles, but quite good ones, and its efforts like yours that help Wikipedia excel above and beyond. Keep up the good work! --JayHenry 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Heart College Middle School, Adelaide

Greetings, I would just like to ask you why you deleted my new article Sacred Heart College Middle School, Adelaide when there is nothing wrong with it. I did not include any derogatory text in the article, and did not post any false information. If you could please take this into account before deleting another person's true article. So would you please re post my article, or at least get back to me explaining why you thought it should be deleted. This would be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards, Timsdad 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

At the time I deleted it, the entire contents of the page were "sacred heart college middle is probably 1 of the maddest schools in the southern hemisphere. that is all" (sic). I don't know if that's what you were referring to. Sam Blacketer 11:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shcms

many thanks for fixing my article shcms, i was not sure how to delete the colon, thankyou :) Timsdad 11:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kersal Massive Deletion review

Hi. You commented on the Kersal Massive deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 1#Kersal Massive). As the version of the article that was deleted had been heavily vandalised with patent nonsense and stuff made up in school (see User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal for the original page at deletion), and hence did not have a fair deletion discussion, I've created a new, reliably sourced, version which explicitly states notability at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2. Many thanks, Laïka 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Remembrance...

Remembrance Day


--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i was wondering....

hey, i was wondering if you could tell me how to delete things in the title of an article. i recently made a school article which i mistakenly put a colon at the end of, and i did not know how to fix this wihtout making another article and then that article with the colon not be updated. the article is St. Martin de Porres, Adelaide and there is no period after St (you could also do it yourself if that is quicker). This will be greatly appreciated, thanks Timsdad 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP noticeboard entry re Atze Schröder

Hello,

the BLP noticeboard entry I posted on that topic did not generate as much feedback as I had hoped. Of those editors not previously involved in the debate, you were the only one who voiced an opinion regarding the inclusion of the artist's real name. Do you think it would be warranted to remove the name again from the article? Or how would I get a second opinion?

Thanks, --B. Wolterding 18:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VVPAT

Thanks for the assistance with the VVPAT entry. I believe the user is honestly attempting to improve the article, but not actually having that affect. --Electiontechnology 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Why do you suspect Xenophrenic is Reddi? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I must have confused the claim that Xenophrenic is Reddi with the identification of Xenophrenic as the anonymous IP who was a party to the Winter Soldier arbitration case. Sam Blacketer 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI Thread

Hello Sam! Thanks for taking the time to address the concerns regarding the incident between User:Charles and User:UpDown. I would like to say the consistent removal of comments on Charles's talk page, [2], [3] and loss of cool here, by Charles demonstrates to me that the user appealing should serve the same block. I would like to suggest an unblock for User:UpDown because of their partial level-headedness in the situation, in which User:Charles was rather rude, IMO UpDown was acting upon instinct gathered in Wikipedia rather that becoming involved like Charles whom has become associated with the AFD nominations of multiple royalty-related articles, check AFD for confirmation. The casus belli was the closure of this AFD earlier today, check the first Keep by UpDown which probably helped to raise tension between the two. Regards, Rudget zŋ 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you that Charles' removal of talk page comments and UpDown's readdition of them does not seem to have helped the atmosphere. However in general any block should apply to both Charles and UpDown as they each contributed to the disruption. I think, though, that if there is reason to suspect that disruption will not resume were they unblocked, then it would be appopriate to reduce the block or unblock, which is why I have asked Charles for his views on the matter. Sam Blacketer 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing your comments, I would have to agree. I just located an edit on Charles' talk page by UpDown telling him "to leave Wikipedia". So, we'll have to wait and see what happens. Sincerely, Rudget zŋ 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect instead of an Afd

I understand that the administrator you is presently involved in a block situation resulting from a redirect as opposed to an Afd. Several days ago I raised this issue on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Using_redirects_instead_of_proposing_Afds. Judging by subsequent events, I don't think that the matter has received the attention it ought to have. Noel S McFerran 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes - interesting point, and I'll have a look at it. Sam Blacketer 22:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Also could you use your administrator powers to correct a problem resulting from that edit war. The talk page for Princess Marie of Hanover is presently going to a redirect to her father's talk page. Thank you. Noel S McFerran 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually this does not need administrator powers: a redirect can be edited by going to it with the URL suffixed by "&redirect=no", or by clicking on the link when I small text on the top left where it says "Redirected from". Sam Blacketer 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurrah!

Thanks muchly for fixin' that up. I figured the block was coming eventually, what with this one person in my workplace who keeps vandalizing. Can just anyone put one of those "This is a shared IP" things onto an anonymous IP's talk page? Lychosis T/C 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point - now done. Sam Blacketer 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Vandalisim and Harrassment

Hi I seen you helped in the deletion of the page Zachary Jaydon. I was wondering if you could help me out somehow. Mr Jaydon has used the ip 65.219.130.15 and now the account User:TragedyStriker has been internet stalking me for awhile now (someone I knew in person who turned out to be a fraud and was not happy about it.) Under the ip he vandalized the page Ben Bledsoe several times and under this Tragedy Striker one he's vandalizing pages of artists he's worked with and the Mickey Mouse Club page. Then he left me a threatening message on my talk page about reverting those edits and claiming I was 'vandalizing' them. The deletion review of his page concluded he had been nothing more then an extra on MMC thus not a 'cast member'. As for his songwriting yes hes worked with the artists hes editing but hes not noteable; so its not really encyclopediac worthy.

Im asking a few things here since I am not so good with Wikipedia beyond writing and editing articles (I have trouble working the admin system). For starters could both his accounts be blocked again (the ip has been in the past)? And if not from Wikipedia then at least from contacting me? He's vandalized several pages constantly plus usuing original research like I've said so in addition to threats I think that would be enough. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Thegingerone 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Norvan Vogt

Hi. I notice you removed the db-repost tag for Norvan Vogt with the reason that there had been no AfD for this article. I am unsure why this is so, as the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norvan vogt. The AfD was subsequently endorsed at DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_18. Euryalus 10:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The original page had no capital letter to begin the surname. Generally I look at the deletion log to see if the page has been deleted previously and if so, why; in this case because of the different page names, the previous AfD did not show up. Sam Blacketer 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

[edit] 3RR block of Domaleixo...

Thanks! --Merbabu 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought...

Thanks for the 3RR help.

I spent a fair bit of time this morning tidying up the List of countries spanning more than one continent article. I removed uncited contentious material, synthesised material mixed in with uncited "reasoning" (ie, original research), removed blatant inaccuracies (not cited), and provided a few references of my own to support the minimal amount of new info I added. Yet, Domaleixo just blind reverted them four times. he removed my references, insisted on his own point of view and the expense of all others (no references), and disregarded my detailed edit summaries.

Myself and another reverted a few times, but now I'm on 3 reverts. And the article is largely in Domaleixo's over reverted version. Even after I was on 3 reverts, i added cite tags and he just removes them. Essentially, I've played by the rules and am thus ham strung, and another guy gets his lousy version cause I stick to the rules and he doesn't.

What do you suggest I do? I could just sit out 24 hours, but then no doubt the game starts again. Surely, providing a source trumps no source? But, it seems not in this case.

any suggestions would be appreciated. regards --Merbabu 11:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As for this specific article, problem seems solved for now. but what are your thoughts on the general question for future reference? --Merbabu 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and more

He's back this time on East Timor. As before using IP 189.41.something. regards --Merbabu 13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR by Perspicacite?

I love your flower, I hope you don't mind if I pinch it?

I'm not too well up on the technicalities of 3RR so would you have a look here [4] and here [5] and here [6], please?

I don't think I'm a vandal, and User:Perspicacite keeps removing material which is well cited in our other articles - just follow the links in the material he keeps removing with his reverts.

The material he is removing is well-known history of Cabinda and referenced in SEVEN of our articles - it's a bit like excising a paragraph that states that Hawaii is part of the US or that most humans have two thumbs. It's not like I've removed his own novel theory that Portugal grabbed Cabinda from the Belgian Congo...

If I'm wrong please tell me (or vice versa). Thanks for listening! Alice.S 09:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Alice.S is now blocked from editing for 24 hrs due to pointy disruption.[7] Under the circumstance, I advise no action taken with Perspicacite. El_C 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No problem. Is that second sentence directed to myself? El_C 10:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, to Alice.S who incidentally didn't notice that the flower above was given by Neranei as a thankyou for a support vote in an RfA. Sam Blacketer 10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I think I messed up one of your sections, too. Sorry about that. Regards, El_C 10:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on AN/I

Sam, I added more info concerning personal attacks to my original complaint on the Noticeboard. This fellow is again adding insult to injury by questioning the mental stability of editors that disagree with him. Ovadyah 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfowitz to Dalai Lama

I think I see your point at the Wolfowitz discussion. The interviews aren't particularly meant to be critical analysis of what a notable person says, but to simply record their perspective and what they feel they know. For instance, I interviewed the Dalai Lama's representative about the whereabouts and information he has on the six year old 11th Panchen Lama the Chinese government has put into hiding. I linked the interview on that page as a "See also" - Wikinews can be wikified. If that is not acceptable, is it more acceptable to work the information into the article with a citation? Or not at all? --David Shankbone 21:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiskey For Kids Foundation

The Whiskey For Kids Foundation is a legitimate "humorous" foundation that has fans and merchandise attributed to it. It should be included. http://www.myspace.com/whiskeyforkids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgarfrog (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

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:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 15 November 2007, a fact from the article Percy Daines, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 15 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denis Keegan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 13:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 15 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Morris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)

Sam, in what way was this "substantially identical" to this? They have different statements, different sources, and different authors. WP:CSD#G4 is for deletion of copies or pages with only trivial differences... not to blanketly prevent any article from being reposted after a deletion. --CBD 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was there before you on your talk page, I think. They both refer to the same person, and CSD G4 is precisely to stop recreation of pages which have just been deleted. If G4 did not exist then deletion debates would become meaningless. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
We were both posting at the same time. I must disagree with your interpretation of G4. It states very clearly;
"A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."
This was not a "copy". Not only was it not "substantially identical"... it was completely different. G4 does not exist to prevent pages from being reposted. The new page absolutely addressed the reasons for which the material was deleted. If I must take your speedy to deletion review I will, but there is no way this was a G4 candidate. --CBD 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not in practice matter whether a recreated deleted article is a copy or whether you start anew. I do not believe the article which I deleted addressed the notability concerns which led to the AfD being closed as a delete. The two additional claims for notability was that Robert Young was frequently quoted in the media, and lectured on age. The previous article had links to media stories which quoted Robert Young, and already pointed out some academic links. I do not believe this amounts to such a substantial new claim for notability such as to overturn an AfD close. Please challenge it through deletion review. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I created the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Robert_Young_(longevity_claims_researcher). CBD 22:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Polish government-in-exile in London

As far as I know, the exile government recognized the post-communist gov of 89/90 and yielded to it. I'd assume the current Polish government recognizes awards and such of the exiled government, but I don't know the legal details involved. PS. You might want to ask this at WP:PWNB.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 71.239.133.107

Hi. Please be aware of my question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:71.239.133.107_reported_by_User:Jeff_G._.28Result:No_violation.29, and please reconsider your decision. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 18 November 2007, a fact from the article Robert Crouch, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

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:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 21 November 2007, a fact from the article John Gouriet, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews interviews

You may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian federal election, 2007

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/
http://ninemsn.com.au/
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813391-2,00.html

I'm sitting in australia, and I think hes one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk • contribs)

Kevin Rudd does not become Prime Minister until next week at the earliest. Please reread my comment, and also compare polling day in the Australian federal election, 1996 and the date John Howard became Prime Minister. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dude, why don't you just accept that Australia has a new Prime Minister? Seriously, no one cares about your stupid formalities; if everyone else can believe we have a new leader, you can too. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that election results produce an exhilarating feeling of excitement and a rush to get on with things, but we are writing an encyclopaedia. It is not appropriate to anticipate events however likely they are to occur. I'm sorry you regard it as a 'stupid formality' to insist that what is in articles is verifiably true but it is part of the core policies of Wikipedia, even if it makes articles sometimes a bit dull. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
We in Australia are watching and reading this now. Now one cares for the past, it's all gone. Haven't you been watching about the "new leadership". Get off your high horse and realise that Australia is right, and you are not. We have a new Prime Minister now, and don't need some person to declare it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm watching the election results live right now, and it may be that some change can be made when John Howard speaks. However, John Howard remains Prime Minister until he resigns or is (ahem) dismissed by the Governor-General. It isn't a matter of opinion or debate; Kevin Rudd is not Prime Minister until he has formally been appointed, and policy on Wikipedia is clear that we do not anticipate events. This isn't personal or political because I do not have an interest in the Australian election; the reason I'm standing up for it is precisely because as a non-Australian I am acting without any bias except for fact. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for how rash all Australians are seeming over this issue. You seem to care about wikipedia, and the fact that it provides a verifiable encyclopedia filled with facts. If you really care about creating such an interesting and un-biased source, you should allow us to make some change that lets all the readers know that Kevin Rudd is, or is going to be within the coming weeks, the prime minister of australia. If you don't let some kind of change to happen, you would obviously be just as bad an administrator, as John Howard was a Prime Minister. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If the term 'Prime Minister-elect' is in use then I think, as I'm now watching John Howard concede, that it would be appropriate. The Kevin Rudd article is only semi-protected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That is all I ask for now. --ClEeFy (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Its now on the Wikipedia current events, I think it is important. How stupid will you look if the community finds out you are the one delaying the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.175 (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] di Stefano

I had discussed my proposal with Jimbo via email before and he was ok with it. In any event, it always makes sense to go slowly with these sorts of things. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom questions

They look fine to me; some users have been quite serious, while others have been quite cheeky; you look to be somewhere in the middle. Ral315 » 05:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Hopper (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 09:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi Sam. As you are an admin here, I would ask you to take some steps to stop Hereward77 because he repeats to put warnings?! in other user's discussion pages, and he is the one who keeps including WP:NOT content such as political comments made during Republican's Committee discussion in order to present Bosniaks (an ethnic group as terrorists). Which is more importan he keeps removing the International Court decisions about some events regarding the topic. This is well known behaviour by many users here, who create account and try to present themselves as somebody else. For instance Hereward77 made many reverts in The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war article when he was signed in, but as you can see here he didn't sign in: 124.185.64.124 (a user from Canberra), although in his user page he wrote that he lives in UK. There are so many sockpuppet games here, based on rascism and hatred, and that's why I ask you to handle this situation. The user was blocked but for a short time period, and he immidiately continued to do the same revets?! The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was alerted by The Dragon of Bosnia of this situation two days ago and I just want to concur and comment on his above paragraph. In fact, from my own experience and simple research, it seems clear that User:Hereward is just another reincarnation of an earlier vandal named Ivan Kricancic; for proof, one merely has to look at earlier vandalism on similar topics from a related IP address - [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. This same user previously used other accounts[14][15] and was blocked for sockpuppetry. It does him no favor to note that he also held openly racist views against Bosnian Muslims. Live Forever (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've left notes for these users giving advice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks a lot for dealing with that IP on The Wave (board). It was almost blocked instantly after my AIV report. STORMTRACKER 94 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read your statement, and it seems very reasonable and down to earth. I particularly like "I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive." Now if you could provide a link or two to such approaches, you'll have my vote. — Sebastian 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this; I have added some links which I think may be useful. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding them. I just looked at all the "a" and "c" links, and searched for all occurrences of your name. Most pages have a handful of 1-paragraph statements, and I browsed through them but it was hard picking evidence for outstanding diplomacy out of the haystack. Is there any specific case that you could point out? — Sebastian 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

[edit] Peerage

Hi Mr. Blacketer! I've noticed that you've quite a bit of experience writing on MP's, and am wondering if you could help me out a bit. I'm curious if any of your experience may translate to peerage as its relevant to the House of Lords. I've recently edited Paul Bew, Baron Bew (stemming from a result of my reading, and enjoying, his latest work). The title aside, which I'm wondering if it fits with the manual of style, is it proper to style the fellow as a "baron"? All the materials I've seen give him the title of "Lord." Is this one in the same, or are they different? Any light you could shine on this issue would be great, and if you'd like further clarification as to what I'm asking (I'm not as confident in my communication skills after studying all night, haha), please don't hesitate to ask, either here, on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have answered on User talk:Gaillimh. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to respond. I had no idea how the whole title conferment thing works. Thanks again and apologies for the delayed response! gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Category:Cellular devices"

Hi you deleted this category. I spent a LOT of time attempting to create a resource of all cellular devices only to have it deleted. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchmaven (talk • contribs) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on Searchmaven. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pygmy Guru

You deleted the Pygmy Guru article, claiming it to be an "insignificant" group. Yet, Pygmy Guru continues to play shows around the eastern US at an active frequency. In short, fuck yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.225.47 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:67.82.225.47. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Straffen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Pygmy Guru

I'm not asking for your support. I'm expressing my general dismay in finding my article deleted. All the time and thought put into that article was wasted. Wikipedia is the collaboration of minds and people, to create a digital encyclopedia where simple folk like myself can visit and retrieve information. And my information was lynched, hung, and stoned to death by none other than Sam Blacketer.

You are the pretentious, bloated Hitler of Wikipedia.

Have a jolly day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwillbill (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

After such a convincing explanation I can now quite see how removing a manifestly non-notable subject from an online encyclopaedia is immediately comparable to a rampaging bloodthirsty mob seeking out members of a racial group to kill in cold blood, or religious extremists enforcing a rigid code of morality through a brutal and primitive method of torture. Indeed it seems perfectly fair comment to compare me to a genocidal dictator responsible for crimes against humanity and waging aggressive war. Please feel free to enlighten me further whenever you spot any similar comparisons. I must buy you a beer for this valuable insight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

[QUOTE] I'm following up a report on the three revert rule report board about the editing on Stacy Carter. Your editing broke the three revert rule by undoing changes by other edits more than three times during a 24-hour period. I have decided not to block you from editing because the report was made a day after the edit dispute and you did stop after another editor contacted you, but please be aware that blocks can and do follow three revert rule violations.

If you get into a revert war with another editor, it is important to engage them in constructive discussion on the article talk page rather than just continue to revert. This action often gains the attention of other users, and if you want others to express their opinions on the dispute you can ask for a third opinion, or make a request for comments. Sam Blacketer 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) [/QUOTE]

Just want to say that the editor who reported me, Aladdin Zane/Rogue Gremlin, is a sockpuppet hypocrite and made written abuses on my page, which I have removed. He also blatantly editted everything I've contributed without giving a valid, logical reason. :)

User:Haleth 30 November 2007

[edit] Trevor Price

Hi!

Thanks for your offer. The speedy delete has already occurred. The page no longer exists. I was instructed by another admin (see my talk page) to use the delete page I've created. Toby Douglass 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re undelete; sounds good. When you say my userspace, presumeably this means it's visible only to me, so I can edit it to a point where it is presented as evidence for its existance? Toby Douglass 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
re undelete review; don't set it up till I have the page in a reasonable state. I'll work on the page for a while and then get in touch. Thankyou for your assistance! Toby Douglass 18:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Thanks, Quickdraw McGraw! User:Pedant 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from 1990ijk

ya whyd u delete my page about MY FATHER...******* w/e man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1990ijk (talk • contribs)

well you know what, STOP deleting my pages. i want people to know who my dad is. he wanted me to put it on for him. so there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1990ijk (talk • contribs)

[edit] Thank you

Much obliged. DurovaCharge! 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roger Barton (politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 6 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Mainwaring, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Two in one day! --Royalbroil 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on Mainwaring says "He was also active on issues affecting the unemployed, where he consistently opposed attempts to reduce unemployment." which seems unlikely for a Labour man - perhaps you meant promoted. Recent Runes (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I missed out a word, and it should say "attempts to reduce unemployment benefit". In other words, he wanted the rate of dole money to be kept. I'll make the change. Sam Blacketer 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G. Harrold Carswell

Thank you for your response to my Request for Comment on this article; I was wondering if I could ask for some advice? Hanzanian has re-added the same material to the article once again, and I'm not sure if I should wait for further responses to the RFC, or if there is anything else I should do. I suspect it might be difficult to gain consensus with this editor. I have left a message for him asking him to join in the discussion on the article talk page, but previously conversations have been less than fruitful, and it seems pointless to leave the RFC open indefinitely if any changes to/removals of the text are reversed. I'm sorry if this isn't the correct way to approach this situation, but I've never been in a content dispute before. Thanks again for your comment, --Kateshortforbob 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardon Moi

I keep forgetting that Wikipedia can do no wrong and that any and all criticism is unwarranted.

P.S. This page is over 77 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey Sam, what do you think about the recent events about Durova and the secret mailing list? Menticor (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people bring the matter up unbidden, as part of trolling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice response ;) Will (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information

Hi Sam. I would like to inform you that user Osli73 although he was blocked so many times, continues to vandalise articles. As you know I asked your intervention before. Now he is redirecting Serbian propaganda to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia (which he wrote), instead of redirecting it to Serb propaganda (the article I wrote based on ICTY verdicts), because he nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. I think this user should be stop finally. It doesn't make any sense anymore. Propaganda isn't the same term as media role, so his vandalism is really obvious. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Lawrence Turner, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence Turner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Del Rev

I took a further look at the record of the admin you mentioned, and commented on his talk page [16]. DGG (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Terry Pitt, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On December 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terry Pitt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Parliamentary‎

Hi Sam, glad to see that you too spotted the linkspamming to http://www.parliamentaryyearbook.co.uk http://www.parliamentaryyearbook.co.uk/mp-member/bacon-richard.html by Parliamentary‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and I see that a final warning has now been issued.

Hopefully, that will put an end to the spamming, but I also wondered in the username itself was appropriate. You have much more familiarity than I do with policy and practice in that area, but I'm uncomfortable with a username which could be read as implying that the editor has some sort of parliamentary position. Am I being over-cautious? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter of thanks

Hi Sam. I would just like to inform you that I am going to take your advice to start request for comment when dealing with the users who are not willing to honestly contribute. I am going to start it related to Osli73, if he continues with disruptive behaviour. I have now plenty of material, but if you have any other advice before I start it be my guest. I am going to present this case very systematically, for example to list his block log, his reverts, other disruptive edits like this: Block log:

  • 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
  • 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
  • 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
  • 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
  • 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
  • 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
  • 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your eagle eye, please

Hi Sam

I have been trying to be less of a wikignome, and have heavily expanded articles on two MPs: Jack Dormand and Norman Baker. I admire the elegant articles which you have written on politicians, so if you have a few spare minutes I'd be grateful if you could cast your eye over those two and tell me what you think.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion of Jack Dormand (wish I still had the copies of Roth's profiles I used to have on my desk!). It has already been passed as good article, and I think that your good work should raise it closer to featured article status. I'd be delighted if it gets there, just to demonstrate that even a politician who never held ministerial office and never became a household name can be the subject of a comprehensive article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is official

Welcome aboard. :-) FloNight (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Kirill 23:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

Congrats on your new appointment as Arbitrator! Good luck, and don't wear yourself out :) Majorly (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! I'm sure you will do well, serving on arbcom. --Aude (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Sam, I'm sure you'll do an excellent job at Arbcom. Just remember to keep up the good work you do on the regular articles too as your work there is equally appreciated. Cheers - Galloglass 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and best wishes. May you not get stressed-out by our "lengthy litigations". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please let me add my congratulations too. It's not a job I'd want for all the tea in China, but I'm sure you'll do it well, and may G_d have mercy on your soul for signing up for a there-year sentence! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year, Sam Blacketer

Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you the best for 2008! Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR Basboll

I think you have misinterpreted my RFAR request. I outlined Basboll's repeated efforts to seek sanction against me, all of which have been overwhelmingly defeated, but he still persists, disregarding the vast consensus he cease to do so. How else am I supposed to get this guy off my case if he isn't told to do so?--MONGO 09:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting the edits to my userpage! Malinaccier (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin role

Hi Sam. I would like to ask you something about the role of admin. I think Philip Baird Shearer misused his admin rights in Bosnian Genocide article, because he blocked his opponent Grandy Grandy and didn't block his mate who shares the same opinion as his in the discussion he was involved in, it is Osli73, who broke 3RR as well. The problem is, Osli73 broke the 3RR, but he wasn't signed-in the first time he reverted. Can you give me an advice what should I do when I notice that an admin misuses his right? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user & talk pages! I owe you a drink. Whale plane (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFARB/Anti-Domicanism

As far as I know, there has been no attempt at dispute resolution regarding the edits of the involved parties (XL8RTION and UnclePaco). Personally, I think an attempt at dispute resolution would go a long way. One user has an issue with adding material that violates WP:NPOV, while another has a history of engaging in edit wars and making personal attacks. Although dispute resolution and other forms of mediation are not always successful, I think it's safe to assume that there is a high likelihood that the problems with both of these users can be rectified if proper action is taken. I thought you might want to know, since you chose to accept the case. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did note the fact that I was in a minority on accepting this case (worth noting but not should never be decisive). I wish all attempts at dispute resolution good luck. "The greatest honour history can bestow is the title 'peacemaker'". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr Jim62sch

Sam,

I'd submit that the underlying issue is not phrased precisely - from what I have seen, the pertinent question is whether the warning of a legal obligation to report is considered a threat - rather than whether that understanding of a legal obligation is accurate.

The committee is not able to decide on the nature of the obligation, but they should certainly be able to determine if conduct policy as it is written prohibits warnings and notices of a legal obligation to report observed activity. there are far more professions with reporting obligations defined by law than the United States military. Avruchtalk 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've actually handled the issue of whether what was done in this case was a 'friendly reminder' or a threat, and how to approach it. There are other occasion where people have a positive duty to notify the authorities if they reasonably suspect rule-breaking, but most are very specific. Given the fact that US military personnel are a significant part of the wikipedia community, I think that the way this issue was discussed may have misled some users and allowed malicious users a potential way of intimidating opponents. I hope I am wrong about that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are wrong as well. There needs to be a balance between allowing editors to inform other editors of pertinent legal vulnerabilities and obligations and restricting harassing behavior. In this case, I don't think a finding has been made that Jim62sch's behavior was harassing and so what was it? Merely impolite? What, then, is the status of what he actually said if it was neither harassing nor a legal threat? Avruchtalk 21:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see finding of fact 1. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took the "as a minimum" segment to be weakening the conclusion of harassing activity to the point where it appeared as though a statement "Jim's conduct was harassing" would not be supported by itself. Either way, this case is on the edge of being closed so I suppose further debate has no purpose. Avruchtalk 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The meaning is "it was intended as harassing, which is unacceptable, but even if that hadn't been the intent, it would have been likely to be perceived as harassing, which also is unacceptable." Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gohde case

I think in one of your votes you missed a tilde. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a 'five tilde' anonymous sign I did by accident ;-) Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Hutchison (British politician), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved admins

Hi Sam. With regard to your comment here about uninvolved admins on Israel/Palestine articles, my experience is that such an approach would be difficult. Once an uninvolved admin steps in, they are quickly assigned as either "anti-Israel" or "anti-Palestine", based on which particular misbehaving users their attention focuses on first. Thence follows vitriol, and by virtue of answering charges of bias or defending oneself against charges of anti-Semitism or anti-Arabism, the admin is no longer uninvolved. It happens to many admins who set foot more than cursorily on this topic. Again, my perspective may be skewed (or informed) by my own experience, but I thought I'd offer it. MastCell Talk 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something which is likely to be considered during the arbitration, because almost everyone has an opinion on Israel/Palestine and certainly everyone can be pigeonholed as having an opinion. If you can think of a way to break the deadlock and give extra guarantees of fair enforcement, the arbitrators would be very pleased to hear it. I certainly have experience of being accused of being a Macedonian partisan (or was it Greek, I never can remember) when I turned down an unblock appeal from a nationalist editwarrior, so "I feel your pain". Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew you were anti-Macedonian. It all makes sense now. No, I don't have an actual solution - just a complaint, as usual. :) I'll think about it, though. Personally, I think that on articles this contentious, we need to be a bit more promiscuous and indiscriminate with topic bans, blocks or other sanctions. Editors who try to stay cool and content-focused see their approach going unrewarded, while recidivist edit-warriors, WP:POINT-makers, and flame-fanners go about unmolested on their 11th chance at reform. The balance of positive and negative reinforcement is way off. Honestly, if a few hard-core WP:BATTLErs need to take a 6-month topic break and go improve other areas of the encyclopedia, it's not the end of the world. But I'll stop trying to influence you with my cynicism. Good luck with the case. MastCell Talk 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Sealand

Gene Poole has now written that Sealand simultaneously considers itself a micronation and a microstate - though I stated more than once on the discussion page that this is definitely not true. When I removed the information, he called it vandalism. He says that if I change it again I will be reported - what would be the best solution to this? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have "stated more than once" is totally and utterly irrelevant. You are not a reliable source as defined by WP:SOURCE, and your personal opinions are not citable in WP. The "best solution" is for you to refrain from vandalising the article again by blanking content which properly cites the official Sealand news source. End of story. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene, you're not helping yourself, you know. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Blanking content which cites sources that comply with WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE constitutes vandalism. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate has blanked the same cited content on 2 separate occasions now. As far as I'm aware WP's vandalism policy has not changed recently - and this is a clearcut instance of vandalism.
You may also wish to review your comments here and elsewhere on this subject, as you seem to be confusing me with Onecanadasquarebishopsgate.
Firstly, I have made no accusations of trolling. Accusations of trolling were made about me by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate in the context of a Wikiquette alert posted by the above editor about me, which was found to be groundless.
Secondly, I have made no "inappropriate edits" to Principality of Sealand or any other article. The fact that not even one diff has been produced by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate to show any such "inappropriate edits" should be a good indication to you that there are none.
The real problem here is Onecanadasquarebishopsgate. He is effectively a single-purpose account that was created several months ago. He has been attempting to relentlessly push a fringe POV into Principality of Sealand and a number of related articles ever since - as both Warlordjohncarter and DrKiernan have already pointed out.
Despite literally dozens of requests he has failed to produce any citable sources supporting his position. Not a single other editor supports his position, and numerous other editors oppose it - and yet he is continuing to push it relentlessly, against consensus, and without references, claiming that it constitutes WP:NPOV.
As an Admin and Arbitrator you should take particular care to base your statements and observations on hard evidence, rather than on mere suppositions and unsubstantiated accusations. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pygmy Guru

I guess my point was, instead of just deleting the Pygmy Guru in such a lazy fashion, I would have expected you to at least try to better the article. Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia? To expand, as a community, each article to provide information for the masses?

It is not your job to police Wikipedia. You technically have no job here. But if you want to better the readers' experience, maybe better the article so that it follows the website's guidelines?

I don't know. I never really thought laziness was an admirable trait of a moderator. Please reconsider.


- Your absolute biggest fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwillbill (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm so sorry, in advance

Hi,

This really is terrible of me, but I feel compelled to point out that "obiter dicta" is the plural of "obiter dictum" (in reference to your remarks while rejecting the Rollback ArbCom case.) I hate doing things like this, but my mom taught English and Latin for many years, so a certain level of obnoxiousness is in my blood!

I'll take this opportunity also to point out to you my remarks at the IRC Proposed decision talk page, under the heading "ArbCom Mailing List" regarding David Gerard. I understand you may not wish to offer comment on my question as deliberations continue, but I wanted to point the remarks out to an Arbitrator, just to make sure they didn't "fall through the cracks." I'm guessing that -- since you probably want to beat me right now for being a word-jerk -- this is as good a time as any! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In response to your message

Hello, Sam Blacketer! In response to your message regarding New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008, I just wanted to apologize for that edit I made to the results table. I realize that I should have looked more carefully at the information provided.

Would it be possible to write an explanation of the Republican results in the Democratic primary in the article? Your explanation seems to make sense, but a statement verified by a member of the New Hampshire government would be appreciated. That way, the confusion would be minimized.--Dem393 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraordinary rendition

I did request a RFC for the above mentioned article as you suggested in your decision to deny my request for formal mediation.

Swatjester has posted his opinion on the RFC, the Third Opinion and the RSN. I thought these and all other avenues were to invite neutral third parties not interested in the dispute to post their opinion and the interested should remain uninvolved. I mean the talk page has our failed attemtp at resolution if anyone wanted to see our POV. His opinion and mind shouldn't count and that's why on the the RFC I posted a neutral statement to start the discussion, not my opinion. Should we involve ourselves in the other resolution tools?--Ccson (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your reply and suggestion, I will take them, however; my question is that no matter what the dispute, shouldn't the interested parties remain neutral and not post their own opinion where we're asking others for their assistance. Swatjester is the first and only comment on the RFC and that may somehow prejudice other editors who come after him. My comment gave no history or my opinion, I simply posed a question. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone's opinion should count. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A RFC is open for everyone to comment, not just those who you approve. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine/Israel arbitration case

You write "I can either prove, or provide conclusive circumstantial evidence, that User:Jaakobou has been operating one or more sock-puppets in order to edit-war. He has had 4 days to tell us how many there are, and name them."

If you have reasonable good faith grounds for believing Jaakobou has been misusing multiple accounts then please send it to the arbitration committee mailing list (where it will be treated confidentially), at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Setting a deadline for Jaakobou to reveal them is not relevant, because that might be taken to imply that such use was acceptable if subsequently declared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll not share this information with anyone. I know what happened in the Isarig case - the known sock-puppets accounts were deleted, depriving everyone of the opportunity to check the evidence and repair the damage to articles. But the sock-master was not forced to declare his (apparently admitted) other socks! It was an absurd situation then, it's an absurd situation now. Jaakobou must confess all his abusive sock-puppet activities before any progress can possibly be made with this case.
  • My statement is full of evidence of Jaakobou's breath-taking record of abusive activities - except as regards what he has done behind our back. I've caught him out in secret activities - but only some of them - and it's essential he come clean.
  • However, I cannot see Jaakobou confessing on this one, he's a protected species against whom no sanctions will ever be imposed. Two well-regarded members of the ArbCom told us he's untouchable (see diffs collected here).
  • In fact, it's long been obvious that Jaakobou is untouchable, as my damning statement makes plain. It seems like madness that any editor raise an ANI on him in the first place, knowing what happened to the instigator of the Isarig case - just days later he was driven off the project by (amongst other things) exceedingly dubious accusations of sock-puppetry, from which he was not permitted to defend himself. Astonishingly, I was reprimanded for drawing people's attention to the uncovering of these sock-puppets - clearly, some people wanted the bad edits to stick!
  • It was a master-stroke to turn this ArbCom into a morass, listing (and intimidating) more and more editors in this area - while preventing (by threat of a 1 month block) the same editors from including User:Jayjg, as so many wanted to do.
  • It was a master-stroke to allow Jaakobou to be mentored by the WP sock-puppet specialist - after all, if 007 refuses to apply his/her world-famous trip-wire detection skills to his situation, the matter is settled. Jaakobou will not called to account.
  • Until now, tendentious defenders of Israel (urgently recruited and likely rewarded eg here) have felt somewhat inhibited against sock-puppeting. I'm sure they will be pleased to be given the green-light to cheat freely from now on. PRtalk 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiliberalism

Yes, you're right. It's far too personal. I'll move it to my sandbox for now. Once all of the I's and so on are removed, I'll put it back. Zenwhat (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Parliament constituencies

Sam, hi! I'm trying to sort out the European Parliament constituencies (the aim is to furnish each one from every EU country with at least a stub containing a map, infobox, sources, navbox and brief description). I've completed the 2004-2009 term [17] and 1999-2004 term [18], (although there is some debate about the names of the Polish constituencies, with contradictory sources), so my attention is now on the 1994-1999 term. During this period, the UK used a plurality voting system with one MEP per constituency, with the result that there were (approx) 80 UK constituencies between 1979 and 1999. So finding sources for them is going to be a whole new world of fun. A brief google search for one of them threw up your subarticle, User:Sam Blacketer/EP constituencies, which - yay! - lists them all. This will help me immensely in my search for sources. With that in mind, can I ask you not to delete that list for a few months whilst i work thru it? Failing that, would you mind if I copied it to one of my sandboxes? Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudget!

Dear Sam Blacketer, my sincere thanks for your (very kind) support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bluemarine ArbCom case

Thank you for your note, requesting my inclusion on this case. I've added my own comments to that section. I trust that ArbCom would do due diligence in verifying any allegation Sanchez might make about me. I'm sure you are well-aware that there have been a full array of unsubstatiated allegations made by him already. And as you can see, from my Talk page, I was invited into this ArbCom after I'd been out of the Sanchez wars for many months. Very surprised to see it had once more degenerated from the consensus view we'd had before. Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Explosions

Thanks for your message I have replied here [19]. Giano (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I will help the Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles

The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee

I am willing to join the working group. I am not an admin so I don't qualify for the Committee. My qualifications are:
1. I am a nice and fair person.
2. I have not edited the articles in dispute.
3. I want to better WP and I am willing to help.
4. I have been called "polite" during a potential conflict which never turned into conflict. (AFD related).

This isn't being power hungry because the working group has no power. It's there to help solve a big problem.Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance

Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About WP:FRINGE

About your comments here [20]

Do you think WP:FRINGE should be eliminated?

I'm not accusing you here, just wondering. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question about article bans imposed by admins.

I have not seen such a ban on any of the Homeopathy related article but I am wondering if such bans are review-able by arbcom upon demand by the blocked user(s) ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Just letting you know I fired you off an email about a minute ago :) Nothing terribly urgent, though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis Presley

Just a question. A recent request for arbitration concerning Elvis Presley has been rejected by the arbitrators. See [21]. Now my opponents who unsuccessfully requested the case are joining forces in order to promote their preferred version of the article. Interestingly, my old opponent Lochdale who has been banned from editing Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision, is among them using the IP 130.208... See this discussion. Rikstar says, "If more people agree than disagree with this change, then the edit should go ahead. The minority who disagree will have to accept it." See [22]. Is it really in line with Wikipedia policy that some Elvis fans can determine the content of the article if they are in the majority? Another user, Egghead06, said that there "appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to achieve some internal star or pat-on-the back." See [23]. Administrator and Elvis fan LaraLove replied that this sentence by Egghead06 "is an ignorant one." See [24]. I would like to hear some unbiased third-party statements. Arbitrator FT2 also suggested that outside views would be helpful (possibly backed by uninvolved adminstrators). Do you have an idea how to handle this matter? Onefortyone (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need help, please - The House of Wisdom

Hi Mr Blacketer, I'm Mussav, we spoke once, I need you to help me on this, there is a member called User:07fan‎ and he is keep removing the content/ sourced info. and he is causing Edit war, the conflict in The House of Wisdom page. could you help me please by talking to him or to tell me how I can talk to Moderators. many thanks. Mussav (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page while I look into it. Please note there are no 'moderators' as such on Wikipedia. I'm disturbed by the fact that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been edited since 2006 despite the recent dispute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, First of all Thank you for looking into it, 2ndly I thought there were Moderators and administrators, any way thank you for the info, finally I'm really sorry for not using the Discussion page, at first I thought it was unnecessary since I'm using official sourced info and to be honest I tried to not cross the lines, but the other user didn't help. Mussav (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Sam Blacketer, User:Mussav is misinterpreting sources, the sources do not support his assertions, there was no state of Iraq at that junction of history, the state was called Abbasid at time, Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century. Saying "Abbasid-era Iraq" is like saying "Ottoman-era Turkey", it's both self-contradictory and wrong. Also, Ctesiphon is not Al-Mada'in, this is another false assertion by User:Mussav, Al-Mada'in was not built until centuries after Ctesiphon was demolished, these are two different cities. User:Mussav's use of references that do not directly support and even contradict the text that they should support, appears to be a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. --07fan (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century? I'm sorry Mr. Sam Blacketer, but I want to correct his info, the Land between the 2 Rivers always called Iraq by Arab, Arab lived in Mesopotamia long time ago, even during the rule of Persia, Al-Manathera Al-Lakhmiyoon lived in Iraq, in Hira in that time and that was before Islam, so since that time it called Iraq, and beside, the name of Mesopotamia came from Greek (Meaning the land between the 2 rivers), while the original people of Mesopotamia "Sumerian" called it Oruk (Iraq), so Iraq dose exist since the Dawn of History, also to prove him wrong, in the 11th Century people called this modern day Iraq by Iraqi Arab, while the Western part of Iran was called Persian Iraq, you can find this info here in Persian Iraq page, this article created by Persians, so I have no Idea what 07fan is talking about. about the Ctesiphon that was an Incest City located in Modern day Iraq, this City now rebuilt and became Al-Mada'in, the ruins of Ctesiphon is still there, what is so hard to understand? It's the same location, people will ask where is Ctesiphon? Vanished? It's not the correct answer, the ruins is still there and Taq-i Kisra is still there and the city now called Al-Mada'in, and this is fact. here this is the link that prove Iraq existed in the Abbasid era, one of the numerous lines that mentioned Iraq, "Once again Iraq was the central province of the caliphate and Baghdad the capital" in another line "from the beginning the 'Abbasid caliphs made Iraq their base" [25]. sorry Sam for bothering you, I just wanted to correct his info. Mussav (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Iraq as a state did not exist until 20th century, it was a region, not a state. Also, you're misinterpreting sources, Ctesiphon did not "become" Al-Mada'in, Al-Mada'in was a new city built in close proximity of what was once Ctesiphon, that's very different from your false claim that "Ctesiphon became Al-Mada'in". --07fan (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't twist the words, state or region, I said the land between the 2 rivers is called Iraq, And this is fact, read what I've said above, I won't repeat my words all over again, that's what I'm trying to tell you but you are so stubborn, about Ctesiphon and Al-Mada'in, I already showed you in many times that I'm talking about the land of the previous Ctesiphon, was, and now what it became. now it became Al-Mada'in, and this is fact if you like it or not. [26][27]. Mussav (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why are you linking Iraq to Iraq (the modern state), and what is the point of saying ""Abbasid-era Iraq" when the geography is already established by the correct description "Abbasid-era Baghdad"? As for Ctesiphon, the city no longer exists, Al-Mada'in did not "become Ctesiphon", the ruins of Ctesiphon are still there, even the source you`re using says "Arabs settled in a new city near Ctesiphon ". Your misinterpretation of facts and sources, is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. --07fan (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Because Iraq means everything, Iraq the state, Iraq the region, Iraq the Abbasid Dynasty, Ancient Mesopotamia, the Persian province...etc you can click on Iraq and know everything about Iraq's history. About Ctesiphon, I told you and I'm really tired of your stubbornness, just click on the links I added above. The source even says it only renamed. "In 637 it was taken and plundered by the Arabs who renamed it, along with Seleucia, al Madain [28]. and in the other link, it says " (the Arabs started to call the place Al-Madain, "the cities")" [29] and this prove that it was the same city. Mussav (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
what is settling has to do with the naming? Don't tell me I have to settle in the same city to call it by my language? any way the link is about Ctesiphon's History, and by saying Arab started to call it Al-Mada'in, they mean Ctesiphon. Mussav (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraq does not "means everything", the Iraq page on Wikpedia is about Iraq the modern country. As for your claim that "Ctesiphon became Al-Madain" please study Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, then the editor is engaged in original research." That is exactly what you`re doing here, synthesizing sources when they do not support your assertions. --07fan (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it dose, I advise you to take a visit on Iraq's page, 2ndly you need to read clearly what I've said, the location is the same, the land is the same, the ruins is still exist there in AL-MADAIN, it doesn't matter if it built later or not, although even the sources said it only renamed, not only the sources, go and visit wikpedia pages, Ctesiphon, Al-Mada'in and Taq-i Kisra, The point is it doesn't matter if it bulit later, All what I have done is adding (now Al-Madain) next to Ctesiphon, and it is a FACT, I have no Idea why you are making it so complicated?, any way all what I've said was on the Discussion page, unfortunately it was in Sam's not the House of Wisdom's Discussion page, Sam I really aphorize of what is happening here. As for you 07fan, talking with you is futile, I'm wasting my time, I will let it to the administrators. Mussav (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mussav, just because you say it is a fact does not make it so. Your total disregard for Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:No_original_research, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Consensus, is disturbing, to say the least.--07fan (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who is saying this is fact, so now, All the pages are false? the Ctesiphon, Al-Mada'in and Taq-i Kisra are false? the sources I brought are false? To be honest, I started to think if I brought to you another 10 sources all of them will be false. Btw, when you crossed the line and removed/deleted the sources, did you get a Consensus? Mussav (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I already explained in detail that you`re synthesizing, and your references do not directly support your assertions. Not only you`re disregarding editorial policies, you`re also engaging in personal attacks by calling me "blind [30] and making other personal comments. And you`re the one who introduced the inaccuracies and controversial changes to House of Wisdom, you should sought consensus on the discussion page before doing so. --07fan (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not synthesizing things, tell me why it's hard to understand the Ctesiphon-Al-Mada'in thing? and please don't tell me I'm wrong in the things I mentioned above. About Iraq I gave you sources that Iraq dose exist in the Abassid era, one of the numerous lines that mentioned Iraq "Once again Iraq was the central province of the caliphate and Baghdad the capital" in another line "from the beginning the 'Abbasid caliphs made Iraq their base" [31]. and I also gave you Ctesiphon-Madain sources. But you insist to be stubborn. Mussav (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
About attacking you personally? If calling you blind means attacking you then I apologize for crossing the line, thought any Blind person can know/understand what I'm saying. Mussav (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes and characters 2

Hi. I think you missed voting on the enforcement paragraph, and I added an alternative proposal to one you abstained on that you might want to take a look at. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements.

TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The initial draft seemed to me to be too harsh on TTN who is, I think, editing in good faith in a way he believes is helping the encyclopaedia. I was weighing up whether to propose an alternate remedy along the lines of requiring him to obtain consensus in discussion before acting, but I came to the conclusion that it would not be practical. The suggestion that TTN only be restricted when others challenge him is likewise difficult to enforce and runs the risk of heightening edit-warring, as those on the other side will take it as a green light to follow TTN around objecting to his moves regardless of the situation.
We have had communication from TTN about the case and I have formed my judgment in the light of it. This is one factor which led me to propose, it looks like successfully, to limit his restrictions to six months; I am hopeful and confident that there will be no reason to renew them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's possible that someone might just follow him around and challenge him on everything he does, so be it. Say something that prevents people from taking it further and reverting back to TTN's version. Make it apply for everyone, that when the challenge is made in relation to TTN's action it has to be discussed or something. It's far from ideal, and is hardly fair, but is still better than a total ban of his actions. We need to see TTN make an action, have it challenged, and then show him how it should be handled. Otherwise no one will learn anything from this. This also treats every thing he's done as wrong, and I'm certain that editors who strongly disagree with him will take this as a ruling that means just that.
Please, let us try the if challenged proposal, even if only for a week or two, then default to the one you are currently proposing. We have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by trying that proposal first. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman music

I'm done with that page anyway. The spammers have won. Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information

Hi, Sam Blacketer! I'm trying to understand ArbCom a little bit, and would like some advice. I'm an admin that's been involved in .. discussions .. at Talk:Matt Sanchez. As you know, the article is on probation. In my mind, the information at WP:SANCTIONS is a bit vague. For instance, discussions on the Sanchez article often get to the point where it seems like one editor is disagreeing with a second just because of who the suggester is, with no regard to the suggestion itself. "A" says 'lets use this picture', "B" replies 'no' simply because it's A suggesting.

When does it become a matter of "disruptive edits"? When do you say "Hey - you're just being stubborn to make a point"? Can edits to the talk page be considered "disruptive"?

And if, for some reason we discuss here, it's determined that a particular user is "disruptive", am I, as an involved editor/administrator, allowed to be the one to block? Or should I request a third-party admin?

A whole lot of questions, I know. I'm sorry. I just feel like editors are being stubborn and blocking actual progress that could be made on an article that sorely needs it. And I don't want to be accused of "abusing" admin tools. Though it does seem that the article can't make any progress unless someone is drastic. <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi, what about this article redirect to a user page? WP:LOTD Gary King (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On March 6, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I'm Backing Britain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Sam, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on m:OTRS. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note by someone who wants to vandalise David Cameron

ha ha i love the way you sit like a dog at davids camerons page in order to revert any impending edits about him, god you conservitive, connies is more apt as it is all a con with you horrible lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.195.202 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Franco-Mongol Alliance RfAr

You didn't vote on the Enforcement provision ... was that an inadvertent omission, or is there an issue there we should discuss? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PHG

Hi Sam. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [32]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [33]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle

I have filed a case per your request. You said this would only be an arbitration issue if it results in divisive administrative action.

While I find it strange that arbcom is more than qualified in identifying sockpuppets, I'll "humor" the processes a little bit more. This is adding to my frustration so I would like to know what kind of a case would arbcom be willing to see assuming the divisive administrative action happens.

-- Cat chi? 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you (arbcom) can delay the RfAr request until SSP concludes? Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle for example concluded and it is only a matter of time for SSP to conclude one way or another. -- Cat chi? 09:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification in IRC case

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

[edit] Resources on past MPs

Hi Sam, I was about to invite you to defend your wishful-thinking football analogy and ill-considered comparisons with conscientious church members in defence of the utterly unconscionable Prem Rawat employee and POV pushing revisionist Jossi Fresco over on Arbcom. But I noticed you have some interest in past British MPs which is far less a depressing subject to contemplate first thing Saturday morning  :-) For family reasons I am trying to find information about my grandfather Frank Clarke who was a popular MP for Erith in the 1930's, an active scout leader, on good terms with the king (George V?) and instrumental in the building of the Dartford Tunnel. Any ideas where I might begin?PatW (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your helpful reply. I couldn't reply sooner as Thebainer blocked me. I am most grateful for your drawing my attention to those avenues, which I will explore in due course.
I must confess that, on the other matter, I have become profoundly disillusioned with Wikipedia. Possibly for the first time in my 51 years I feel I have been involved in a really offensive, unethical and quite sinister process of injustice. I feel like I need to wash my hands (literally) of this place. That Arbcom was a hopeless sham. To observe how you can all so easily favour and accommodate people like Jossi Fresco, who in my experience is pushing his POV in a most fanatical and aggressive way (and that is an understatement!), is too much to bear. From now on I shall turn my attention (if I have time) to discussing Wikipedia's inadequacies in the real world. I'm just sorry that you have been so royally duped since you seem like you are basically trying to exercise justice. I feel that the most friendly advise I can offer you in return for your kindness, is to recommend that you take a long, hard look at what Jossi Fresco is up to before you rush to judgement - because frankly he has made fools of all of you.PatW (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Arbitration Request

I read your judgement in the arbitration request, and while I respectfully agree with the points you have raised, I am disappointed the case is unlikely to proceed. I just wanted to clarify - if the case proceeded, there'd be no guarantee that the editor was unblocked, right? It may so happen that a tighter remedy is applied? I was under this impression when I made the opinion that the case should proceed. If I'm wrong, then I'd change my opinion accordingly. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean IanTresman? The only existing Arbitration committee sanction against him personally is a probation for one year which was passed in December 2006 and suspended when he was indefinitely blocked. He remains blocked but he is no longer 'community banned' because there are admins who are willing to unblock him and give him a chance. As this has not happened yet I had to consider the matter on the basis of what we have now. You're right that should the case be accepted, it's not necessarily the case that IanTresman would end up less restricted than he is now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration - Requests for clarification

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how

how did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.10.90 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people say it started with a bang, others think there was somebody responsible. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Heretic! It wasn't just "somebody"; it was all the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It would appear that you have not been touched by His Noodly Appendage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano Civility paroles

Sam, thank you for writing about your perspective as an arbitrator; it gives me some insight into the situation in which you find yourself. I have responded on Giano's talk page, but I wanted to especially emphasise to you that I don't see this as a Giano-specific issue; it just happens that Giano is the only editor under a civility parole who happens to be on my watchlist. Well, that was, until MONGO got hit last week. But I see the same repeated cycle of mutual overreaction and escalation repeating over and over in these "civility" cases, and what we are doing is just not working, for anyone. I can sense the frustration in your post, and I believe you may be seeing some of the same things that I am. I'd rather work to solve these issues globally than just with respect to Giano, because I think we all need it, but I don't know how to do that as one voice being drowned out by all of this hyperbole and rhetoric on all sides. I am open to suggestion. Risker (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my comment here rather than on Giano's talk page because Giano deletes any comments I leave there.
I think that Sam comes close to hitting the nail on the head when he says that "The problem, simply put, is that Giano often chooses to make his case in terms which are borderline incivil."[34]
Unfortunately, it's a little more complicated than that. Giano's comments are frequently blatantly uncivil when they do not precisely identify a named editor as their target, with repeated remarks referring to "useless admins", the "stupidity of arbcom" etc. However, when he refers to individuals, he uses clever forms of words whose intent is clear, but which fall just short of personal attacks ... but when read together, it is frequently clear that his remarks are directed at specific targets. One of his tactics is to combine a borderline-civil comments with a disparaging edit summary, intended to goad.
On his own talk page, he deletes comments which are critical of his actions, so the conversations that appear there end up presenting an entirely misleading picture of the response to his actions
Some of Giano's criticisms have merit — i.e. they may or many not be right, but they have a point — but Giano's normal mode of behaviour is for his concerns to be raised in a way which disparages both the competence and good faith of other contributors, with deliberately imprecise allegations of grave misconduct by others. This is a deeply destructive form of conduct, because it succeeds in intent of poisoning and polarising the discussion, and creating an atmosphere in which there us little chance of reaching a consenus.
It's far too easy in a situation like this to get lost in debate over individual instances of misconduct, and to miss the wider pattern. That wider pattern appears to me to to be that Giano is a very skilled contributor who writes brilliant featured articles, but who also has clear contempt for the project as a whole: for its administrators, its arbcom, and for editors who don't write featured articles.
Many of us feel that there are things about wikipedia which are problematic, or flawed or even fundamentally broken, but we don't respond to that by trying to create wikidramas as Giano does. The only thing which allows an open community like this to function at all is a rigid adherence to assumption of good faith, and to respond in a civil fashion even when that good faith appears to be missing. Giano simply doesn't do that; when he raises a concern and doesn't get the answer he wants, he rapidly escalates to sneering, as in his sneer to Until(1 == 2).
The irony of that situation is that Giano had been complaining about FT2's removal of his talk page of Giano's query ... which is precisely what Giano does with any comments he dislikes in his own talk page.
In that episode, there were plenty of ways in which Giano could have responded to FT2's inadequate responses to Giano's concerns. I believe that the point Giano which raised deserved a reply on-wiki, but when he didn't get it he rapidly resorted to a personal attack. Giano could taken the matter to WP:AN, or discussed it at the page under discussion ... but instead, when he didn't get the response he wanted, he escalated the dispute by a personal attack on Until(1==2).
This sort of thing happens so often, that many editors who encounter Giano are very familiar with it. The result was entirely predictable: Giano got blocked for a breach of his civility patrol, and then there was yet another wikidrama as Giano claimed to be yet again the innocent victim of a with-hunt.
This was not a witch-hunt, nor was it setting someone up for failure. Giano knows perfectly well that editors are permitted to remove comments from their own talk pages (a mistaken policy, I believe, but that's how it is for now), and considering the frequency with which he does it on his own talk page, he had no grounds for complaint about another editor doing that. It was Giano's own choice to resort to a personal attack; nobody made him do it, nobody goaded him into it. He didn't have to edit war on
And now, once again, we have another Giano-complains-of-victimisation-fest, the latest of goodness-knows how many over the years. The question I see at this point is whether Giano wants to find a way or working with this community (including all its many flaws) without creating so much drama? I am not hopeful because I have yet to see any acknowledgement from Giano, anywhere on wikipedia, that the dramas which surround him are so often like this one: a legitimate concern about the actions of others which is, however, pursued in manner which escalates because of his own actions, and in which he never apologises. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
BHG, does it ever occur to you that I am involved in other things too, of which you have no knowledge. We are all very small cogs in a very big machine. Secondly you revert me too on your talk, so don't be so sanctimonious please, and on this occasion I am permitting yu to remain on my page. Giano (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Giano, it is very rare for anything to be removed from my talk page other than to the archive (the only other exception I can recall is Ryoung122's copy-pastes of tens of screenfuls of text from other talk pages). However, I have recently begun to make an exception for you, after long experience of that my comments on your talk are routinely reverted, most recently in response to your insinuations that I had somehow been a party to some sockpuppetry attacks on you, because I am sick of you censoring replies to your trolling. If you will agree to entirely stop removing my comments from your talk page, then I will be delighted not to have you as the one exception to my don't-censor-my-talk policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your note on my talk page, Sam - it was much appreciated! I've replied in a few paragraphs there (not too long, I promise!) - and if you are at all amenable I'd love to catch up in a 'real time' forum, at any time convenient for you! drop me a line any time if you can find a moment... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Hi from Janie Porche

Hi,

I see that you deleted my page, somehow rendering me as "lacking significance".

Can you either (a) help me to reverse this problem, or (b) help me add significance to my life - enough that would re-qualify me for my wiki page? Perhaps I need to volunteer with misguided youths?

Thank you kindly,

Janie Porche Janieporche (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mfd Facsimile of your userpage

Hi just to let you know that I have raised Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unknown283 which appears to be an almost exact copy of your userpage. -- EhsanQ (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. It's very strange. Although I have seen it defended before as "he likes your picture" (just let him cut the alt "this is me"). Barnstars and Userboxes are only relevant to the users they relate to - I'm sure in the UK, you could at least expect a court summons for misappropriating somebody elses barnstars. If he like's your cat he should still be able to keep that as long as he doesn't alt it as "This is me" without a {{fact}}. -- EhsanQ (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy case

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advice please

Hi, in my topic ban case I've felt quite frustrated from the very beginning. I was never warned and have acted, generally, with patience with the entire proceedings. Now, per this, my appeal has been vectored away and I'm still left with few, if any, answers. I was told to appeal to Arbcom and they were the only ones could could overturn an admin and now am being told that Arbcom appeal isn't needed and that admins can reverse the ban. Where can I turn please? Any help appreciated. Banjeboi 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? If I'm not suppose to go to Arbcom where do I seek to get this overturned? Banjeboi 02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Ullman misunderstood

I too would be suspicious of an editor who used the summary "formating" when providing significant changes as you thought was going on here, as you assumed here [35] However, those changes that I made in both of those instances WAS formatting. Just minutes before doing THESE minor formating changes, I proposed a larger change, as evidenced here...and that is probably summarized, as "Several important meta-analyses published in RS and notable journals...please review before changing or deleting" [36] This is a perfectly accurate summary, but I screwed up the formating of the references and therefore had to correct them twice. These two edits WERE formating issues to the complex new review of meta-analyses that I provided just previously (in re-doing my edit, I had to delete an entire section of previous NEW information, and then provide correct formating of references. In THIS instance, I urge you to see the good faith efforts here, not anything else. I hope that you will clarify the charge that you have made here because my actions were legitimate and honest. If another editor "alerted" you to your previous assumption of bad faith of my part, I hope that you tell us who did this and that you will consider this editor as having an extreme POV and as evidence malicious behavior. Thanx to user:FT2 for noting this confusion and to helping to correct it (confirming my good faith here). Humbly yours... DanaUllmanTalk 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for making that correction. Because this one misunderstanding may have colored your assessment of the situation, I hope that you will re-look at the evidence and realize how many of the accusations against me are also misunderstandings and/or conflicts in content issues. That said, I realize that the job of the Arb committee is extremely challenging. I am simply saddened by the fact that the Arb committee seems averse to points of view that may be positive towards homeopathy and yet not realize that antagonism (even "livid" antagonism) to this subject is not POV-pushing (Shoemaker's Dream referred to homeopathy as "total bunk" in a recent wikipedia podcast...if you want the link, I can provide it). DanaUllmanTalk 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb Com proposal

I am startled by the proposal for a sourcing arbitration board--please see my reply to Kiril on my talk page. I will be discussing it further of course somewhere in the arb com structure & probably elsewhere. Had you confined it to the immediate question presented by the Homeopathy articles, it would have had some justification. Please reconsider. DGG (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Gomme-Duncan

Updated DYK query On 22 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Gomme-Duncan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed decision

Just wondering if you'll be voting on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision, as one of the arbitrators who accepted this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Y Done

3 arbitrators have expressed a desire to move finding 2.1 as a principle; the remainder (including yourself) haven't commented yet. Once this is resolved, and 1 more vote is cast in favour of it, the case should be ready to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annual appeal

In your rejection of the request for clarification, you quote the additional restriction that was piled on top of the others in February: "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." This means that I get to make one appeal between the time that restriction was passed and its one year anniversary next February, correct? Everyking (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to talk to an arbitrator is like shouting into a void. You wait and wait, but no answer comes. I always imagine: "Well, maybe he's consulting with the others?" But eventually I figure out I'm just being ignored. And in this case, by someone I voted for! Can you understand how frustrating it is for the ArbCom to dismiss that request for clarification out of hand and then for you to ignore this very important question about my future options? Months of discussions and consideration went into that request for clarification, and you guys shot it down without a thought. I'm stuck in a well and not only will none of you throw me a rope, you throw rocks down at me when I try to climb out. If you can't tell me whether I am entitled to an appeal over the next nine months, can you point me to the sage who can answer my question? I suppose if I were to file another request for clarification, you guys could count that as my appeal, so I dare not. Everyking (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Morgan-Giles

Hi Sam, do you happen to know if the MP for Winchester 1964-1979 is still alive? I noticed Simon Heffer referred to him as the late Morgan Morgan-Giles in one of his articles but I can find no obituary online. Thanks. --Dovea (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steward info

The Tony Blair article has had his stewardship (of the Chiltern Hundreds) for some considerable time. I see no harm in it. David (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu