Archives:

/archive1 (June 2004-September 2004)

/archive2 (September 2004)

/archive3 (October 2004)

/archive4 (November 2004)

/archive5 (December 2004-January 2005)

/archive6 (February 2005-March 2005)

tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell

You or some other arbitrator should have interfered earlier, when Paul Beardsell started to change other users' edits of the Arbitration page. It's senseless to ask a sysop, when it happens on the Arbitration page. And Paul Beardsell should have asked you, or another arbitrator to change the title. It would have been much more easier to discuss before making these changes. I didn't see any evidence in what I'm accused before starting the case, why the case was made against me, in addition to Paul Beardsell?Tkorrovi 02:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All cases involve investigation of all involved parties. The case is named as it is because there are only two major involved disputants, and allegations are directed at both. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 02:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

You talk about investigation, but I asked about accusation. person1 vs person2 means that both parties are accused, but in the majority of cases here there is only one user name in the title, and that means that only one person is accused, and accusing and making a judgement against the plaintiff, requires a separate arbitration case with an accusation against that person. Is it so or is it not?Tkorrovi 02:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The title "User A vs. User B" usually implies that User A is bringing the case against User B and that there are accusations being brought forward by both sides during the course of a request. Evidence is permitted in support of specific actions if it has merit to the dispute central to the case, and may result in remedies being passed that are not against the original respondent (see e.g. Snowspinner vs. Lir, where Lir filed the original request and was subsequently banned for a year, or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce, where the petitioners themselves were warned against making personal attacks). -- Grunt   ҈  02:33, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Then the case submitted by me is different from person1 vs person2 cases, because before opening the case there was no evidence provided on the arbitration page explaining in what I am accused. Therefore I ask to remove my name from the title, and if some finds an evidence to accuse me, start a separate arbitration case against me. I understand that the result may not be different, but it's necessary for the matter of correctness, just otherwise starting the case that way means that there was an evidence of accusation brought against me just because of the fact of opening the case that way, but there was no such evidence before opening the case. Such arbitration gives a possibility to judge a person without guilt, because the way how the case was opened implies that he is potentially guilty, this is formally wrong.Tkorrovi 03:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lol Matt Stan 20:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia

Wow! That was an excellent April Fool's Day hoax. It really had me worried. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Damn, that was quite a brilliant joke .. lmao but the price tag of $140 million is a big giveaway, wikimedia foundation is NOWHERE near that number. LG-犬夜叉 04:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pictures in the Pope John Paul II article

Please consider contributing your opinion in this Talk section dealing with the perceived preference of one lead picture over another. Thanks. --AladdinSE 05:35, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

different section

I'd like to ask you to account for your votes on the proposed decision talk page of my arb case. Thank you. Everyking 21:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unanswered questions re Tkorrovi vs Psb777

Please see . I have suggested a preliminary sifting of the allegations be done. I have also asked for info re appealing the composition of the ArbCom for my case. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider's arbcom case

I think you may have corrected the wrong proposed decision in this case. As it currently stands you are saying that a 1 month ban might be too harsh, but that you support a 3 month ban if thst doesn't pass. It would make more sense if the 1 and 3 months were swapped. Thryduulf 02:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A one month ban may be too harsh. A three month ban is defintely too harsh and I will only support it if there is no alternative. -- Grunt   ҈  02:12, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Template:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat vs. Fadix

I'm very interested in your reaction to an ArbCom request via a template. — Davenbelle 00:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox in user namespace

I couldn't find an answer to the questions I had about a sandbox in a user's namespace, so I thought I would ask you. I read Wikipedia:About_the_Sandbox and thought I would try making my own sandbox. I made /sandbox, and then moved the page to /Sandbox. Do these two pages get cleared every 12 hours? Are these two pages really the sandbox, or are they really just an extra page that is labelled as "sandbox"? Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 15:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's your userspace. Do whatever you want with it. -- Grunt   ҈  15:14, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Mediation

I am in arbitration becuase I had no sign of mediation or anything over a month. My dispute is not why what is POV or NPOV, my problem is users not following Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, at a point the discussion was completely about how horible I was and why I should be ignored. I want them to present their cases one by one. I declare unverifiable information as NPOV on contraversial articles. I just dont want to be unsulted or pushed around anymore. Two users have been declareing almost everything I add to wikipedia as POV and reverting. Spelling fixes are declared pov. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration request is not related to the conflict of ideas between me and fadix but his general ownership of the article and his general communication with me. If user stops, no need to do anything. Also two other users Stereotek, and Davenbelle have been reverting my edits ever since they met me in Armenian Genocide, their user contribution together is based around mine. Call me a paranoid if you like, but I think they are trying to punish me for my views. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you leave people to read and judge by themselves? Why have you to to go over members pages one by one and lobbying for your cases?

This is not your dispute, this is my dispute and other peoples dispute. Talking of “unverifiable” material, you have yourself reverted and added unverifiable materials yourself, but when I quote works etc. you claim historians are irrelevant and their words should not be taken as truth in what regards history. When they are verifiable, you don't want them, when they are unverifiable but are your POV, you play with peoples nerves with editing and reverting wars. Like just recently when you've been blocked for 24 hours.

I apologize to Grunt for having answered in your members page. I just have enough of this cheap trick to go track members, mediators, arbitrators etc. and lobby against people whom disagree with him(Coolcat). Fadix 20:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Skyranger

Mmmm.... Smells X-com, is that the case? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell

User Chinasaur moved comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell, remaining his there and moving mine [1], just after I put a link on an evidence page to that page [2] because it contains important information. Also, he moved a question about his nationality to my talk page [3]. I understand the reason, but I demand for me an equal right, to remove mentioning my nationality against my will by Matthew Stannard from that page [4] (unfortunately cannot provide diff, as the commentary was moved that after).Tkorrovi 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Timetable

Hi Grunt. I have a question about the WMC RfA. I noticed half of the RfA's under "voting" were started later than the WMC one, and I was wondering on what kind of timetable that RfA would move into voting. It's still a daily problem to deal with all the aggressive reverts that endorse particular POVs, and I've been waiting for some sort of arbitration action to resolve this matter. So I'd appreciate if you could give some sort of estimate of when it would move into voting. Thanks. — Cortonin | Talk 17:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your tip about being able to use double-quotes in article names! I decided to put this to use for Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar", Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther", and Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger". :) - Brian Kendig 23:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Self-ban of Rex071404 has been imposed

Notice from Rex on 04.15.05: In regards to Arb Case #3, last night, I took the time to read the associated project page, talk page, evidence page and proposed decisions page. Additionally, I also went back and read carefully the originally ArbCom ruling which is now being cited as in violation. In reading these, I concede that I have transgressed by reverting several articles over the last few weeks. Rather than make excuses or argue my viewpoint, I am content to accept the complaint as valid that several of my recent edits do count as reverts and as such, should have waited until several more weeks had past, so as not to transgress the 6 month "no reverts" issue. That said, I am pretty sure that other than these reverts, I had reasonably well complied with the prior ArbCom ruling. Even so, the Arbcom and community is deserving of better respect than I have shown by my failure to mind that previous ArbCom ruling carefully. For this reason, I am hereby imposing a sanction on myself. Effective at the completion of this edit, (and it's posting on Grunt's   ҈  talk page), I am "banning" myself from any edits for 6 months, until October 15th, 2005. During this time, I will neither log-in nor edit from by Rex071404 account, nor will I edit anonymously from any IP only activity. This is a complete and total ban. This being the case, should anyone wish to contact me, I will be unable to reply except by email. To do that, you can log-in and email me. My email address which is on file is accurate. Thank you. Regards,

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 16:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grunt, I do not believe this block is justified. Merely stating that one will spend some time away from Wikipedia is not sufficient cause for blocking someone. Has he committed any other blockable transgressions? Or has he asked to be blocked? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Rex071404

Did User:Rex071404 commit a blockable offense or did you just block him because he said he wouldn't be editing? -Frazzydee|✍ 17:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked Rex because I there seems to be no indication that they've commited a blockable offense- neither in your blocking summary or in your post to the noticeboard. The blocking policy states that: "self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited." I think that this applies to syops blocking other users to enforce a departure also. But even if not, the policy says "Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support." Blocking to enforce Rex's departure is neither sanctioned in the policy, nor does it have widespread community support. If you have any objections, feel free to post them at the noticeboard or on my talk page. -Frazzydee|✍ 17:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well. I'll wait for the arbcom case to file through. -- Grunt   ҈  14:33, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Good Job!

I have to thank you for doing quite a nice job fixing vandalism in the Benedict XVI article, most of the time the only trace I could ever find of vandalism was seeing the history, rather then in the article itself. Good job! --Rangeley