User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 February

Meta[edit]

Just wanted to tell you dropped you a note on your talk at Meta. // habj 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RfArb regarding Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your suggestion that I start another new RfArb, wouldn't me doing so simply be viewed as the same RfArb with different music and the dissenting votes flushed? I fear I'd be seen as attempting to manipulate the process. Although I've essentially changed my tune to "Please discuss the effect of behavior like this guy's on Wikipedia and here are some ways it could be mitigated" instead of a sort of "Please punish this guy", the "guy" is still the same guy and the subject matter is similar.

If I have the wrong idea in mind of what you mean, could I solicit a more specific description of what "reopening" an RfArb entails in your eyes? I'm not catching what it would change. Most of those who have rejected have simply cited your reasoning as theirs too, and it seems to me as though while my revision may make the case less sour enough to elicit participation, the others would probably be receptive to you indicating where any merit you saw exists, without the formality of calling it a different or new RfArb. Thanks Reswobslc 04:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Bates[edit]

I would like to ask that you undelete this article, or at least put it on AFD for review. Per WP:BIO, all "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." The brevity of Mr. Bates's career at the highest level should not be an issue, as length of career is not part of the guideline, and the notability of numerous figures with careers of a similar nature has been upheld via AFD in the past. If sourcing is an issue, that should be reason for improvement, not deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was PROD'ed and I neglected to note this in the summary. I have undeleted it. I assume you plan to take a measure of responsibility for its sourcing and editing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to do so; thanks for undeleting! -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Thank you for replying, but I considered you to be one of the arbitrators least likely to accept my appeal anyway, so if you wish to have no further input on the matter that suits me just fine. Everyking 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano book[edit]

Hi! Was just curious if you enjoyed Bradley Joseph's piano book? Cricket02 08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has not yet arrived, though it may well be waiting for me at the post office. I'm looking forward to it since I have Wednesday night church gigs all through Lent that are supposed to be piano-based. Sometimes I find that atmospheric stuff like his is best for the beginning of the prelude. I have a book of Windham Hill transcriptions I sometimes use but there are only a couple of them that are really right for that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ennui - copyvio[edit]

Hello, I am unable to verify whether Ennui is an American Heritage Dictionary's copyright violation. Please delete the article is you have access to the dictionary and it's a copyvio, or revert it to a clean revision. Thanks. Conscious 09:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Moving all the statements[edit]

I realize a tail had grown beneath my own statement in the IRC case brought by Irpen--as you probably saw, I addressed its presence--and I was just going to remove it to talk, since it kept growing in spite of my plea. I also see that Ideogram has misused the ability to make a statement on the page. My own statement was perhaps also too argumentative. But now I see you have removed ALL the statements regarding the case as being, according to your edit summary, "talk". That seems high-handed to me. Many of them are extremely informative, and people have clearly taken trouble in composing them. Do you really feel that is an acceptable way of handling people's words, which they had reason to think would remain on the page until the voting was over? Please take a look at Alex Bakharev's statement, if you haven't already done so; at Giano's; at jbolden1517's. Are those really "talk" in your estimation? Bishonen | talk 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, the case is heading toward rejection; rejected cases are removed from the page with no archiving. By moving the comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC, he is actually preserving them; see also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. Thatcher131 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK. Sorry, it wasn't any too clear. I'm glad to get the views of the arbitrators presented individually. I hope they use the new page. Bishonen | talk 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's important to preserve as clear a record as possible, hence the separate page. I believe that part of the reason we keep going around and around on this is that many of the same points are being brought up after well-meaning efforts to archive the original elucidation of them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, some of the reason there is that we have had multiple efforts at shunting conversations off to special pages, and, while those go hot for a while, they are then retired, so, when the issues re-emerge, we get yet another round, yet another shunting off to a special page, yet another retirement of the page, etc. I won't speak for anyone else, but one reasoning for accepting the RFAR is that it settles the issue and makes for a deliberative (rather than "talk") place to state arguments and have done. From then on, people would be able to refer to the arguments in the RFAR rather than rehash them with greater or lesser vituperation. Geogre 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there isn't a consensus among the Committee to open the case, I believe that this is the best that can be done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests_for_arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945[edit]

Hi, sombody has made me aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. I thought my original message was reasonably neutral, however I do apologise. As a relative newby, I ought to take some time and read all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martintg 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 6.9[edit]

UninvitedCompany,

Recently you commented on some text I rewrote into the RfArb I started regarding Lucky 6.9 and suggested I start a new one with those comments as the existing responses and decline votes no longer applied.

I never bothered to turn it into a "new" RfArb, and despite that, the "accepts" have become the majority since the rewrite, even with the original declines that are still there. If you still feel that the request as rewritten has merit, would you mind altering your decline that is still there? Thanks Reswobslc 05:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your IRC post[edit]

I just want to say that your post was very informative and as a regular editor, I appreciate the insight and background. I could tell from your words that it wasn't easy and it was certainly a brave thing to publish. I wish you the best of luck and thank you. Agne 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say, bravo! It is good to see someone has stepped up to the plate and grabbed the bull by the horns, so to speak. Half-measures and guarded caballish communication has been the breadth of any higher look at this prior, and I am very pleased that you have looked at the IRC issue in full and in depth. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't engaged in any personal attacks on the admins channel. If you have examined the channel logs you will have seen that I when have commented on the conduct of other editors, I have done so always in the context of the severe damage that this does to Wikipedia. This is very much what the admins channel is for (the admin noticeboards form a similar environment). --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philwelch RfAr[edit]

With all due respect, sir. The issue spans through a large period, where Phil handed out blocks while being in [content] disputes with them. He has been reminded a lot of times by various administrators to cease this behaviour. But those efforts seem to have failed. As this issue is about the inappropriate usage of administrative tools, I felt that I should bring it to the notice of the arbitration committee, rather than going to RfC. There is also one possible incident of making an unblock (which was probably his own IP) while being blocked. Inappropriate behaviour, don't you think? Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. You still have to follow all the steps. Take it to RfC first, and if the problem continues, then bring it to RFAR. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. A RFC is not required. It is required that the user is given feedback about the problem and a chance to change his behavior. This has occured already in several places over several related issues issues. A RFC is not possible now since he left in a huff. I think the RFArb should preceed with Phil being notified that the case was accepted. Like most users in this situation, I think he will return in time to respond to case. FloNight 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UC: User has already made a "toilet-paper" comment on what he thinks about RfCs. The history of troublesome blocks extends to more than six months. There has been incivility and failure to listen and discuss issues with users. The reason why RfCs exist is to solicit comments about a user's behaviour on the encyclopedia. The evidence produced shows that there have already been lot of comments from various administrators and users. As abuse of admin tools is involved, I firmly believe that the Arbitration Committee is the proper venue to deal with it. Respectfully, — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nathanrdotcom[edit]

hi, housekeeping per the ruling, can you redo the indefinite block so it is clear that the block is being enforced by Arbcom and there is no confusion in the future? Currently the log says pending outcome. No biggie on timeline but htere has been confusion on other blocks once time has passed over why/how a block has been imposed. It's best if the block is done by an arbcom member for the arbcom committee. Thx. --Tbeatty 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually do blocks ourselves, preferring to leave them to other admins or community members. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thatcher131 12:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, should the page be moved from "private deliberation" to "closed"? Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Thatcher131 12:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IRC_channels/Personal_views_regarding_IRC#Statement_by_UninvitedCompany[edit]

Well written. I apologise for opposing you for arbcom, even if weakly; you've lived up to my hopes, and allayed my fears. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation[edit]

I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Andries (talk · contribs)' activisism arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba2[edit]

You proposed a notion in which you asserted that I engaged in activism on Sathya Sai Baba related articles. I deny this. I am still waiting for diffs that support your accusation against me. I consider it contradictory that some members of the arbcom have supported a motion that stated that my recent edits on the article Sathya Sai Baba were responsible and also supported a motion to ban me indefinitely. In short, I protest against a ban without that is supported on such flimsy and even contradictory grounds and I request you to re-consider the case. Andries 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

sk OTRS queue[edit]

Hallo. Your name is listed among the contact persons at meta:OTRS as a contact person. We would like to start the queues info-sk and permissions-sk for the Slovak Wikimedia projects. I have been trying to get in touch with one of the contact person for a while, but I have not received a response. Could you please help? Thank you! (w:sk:User:AtonX / w:sk:User talk:AtonX). --AtonX 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

February 21[edit]

Hi. In view of impending events and recent off-site announcements, and your role in last year's discussion, you might (or might not) wish to comment at WP:AN#Brian Peppers. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr: Derek Smart[edit]

Normally I would post this on /Workshop but it's quite late in the day as far as the case goes and I wasn't sure if it would be noticed. Anyway, at present you've proposed a remedy to deal with the SPA problem down there. Would it be beneficial to introduce something (or add to the current remedy) to deal with disruptive IPs? I ask because the page was recently unprotected and almost immediately a Derek Smart-like anon began removing the disputed material again. -- Steel 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]