Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 15 February 2008

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5

MONGO 2 case

So what now...I wholeheartedly agree that a big decrease in drama would be great. But I can't shake these guys lose...my only recourse to get them off my back is if you guys tell them to cease and desist...ban me or ban them...otherwise, I have to abandon my account! I can't twitch without some of these editors running to some noticeboard to cry a river over it. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of wanting to link to websites that attack our contributors, but when someone doesn't treat them like royalty, they come screaming for some kind of sanction to be implemented., ...so what do guys such myself and JzG do to shake off these guys? Let them run us off the site? I'm not faulting your decision...it is likely the best one...but what advice can you offer? I am doing what I can to not be baited, but they lay out some really delicious morsels. How many frivolous complaints does a person have to make before they are creating more drama then we really need?--MONGO (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply feel that an arbcom case right now would only give people more scope to be disruptive and would be unsatisfying. However - disruption is disruption, and blockable in serious cases. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled at your voting statement. As I read it, this amounts to a threat of taking action against people who ask the arbitration committee to do their job! Please clarify exactly what you meant by "if the drama does not stop all involved editors may be subject to sanction". This arbitration request is about getting you to stop the drama, by enforcing the civility policy. --Barberio (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand. I was warning that anyone who thinks that one 'side' is blameless and the other wholly to blame is probably mistaken, given what I'm seeing, and that an arbcom case, if opened, would most likely sanction not only MONGO. Think of it as a final warning and a invitation for everyone involved to look at their behavior and see if they can find ways to disengage and reduce the drama and incivility. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that your reluctance to accept the case is seen as endorsement of the status quo. Most people on the wiki *WANT* both 'sides' of this stupid drama sat down, and firmly told that Civility is not a guideline but a core policy. We *WANT* you to sanction everyone who willfully and regularly breaks this policy! We *WANT* the Arbcom to stop punting this issue in the hope that it'll go away, because it's been a major problem for years now, and rejecting this case will only lead to more 'Drama' from the two warring 'sides'. Accept that because of lax attitudes towards the enforcement of Civility, the dispute resolution system has broken down, and ArbCom intervention is needed to fix it. --Barberio (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you wish to circumvent the 'drama' of a full case, I have made a formal request for clarification, so the arbcom can answer the simple question of "Can 'Standing in the Project' be used to mitigate personal attacks and incivility". You have the opportunity now to put all parties on notice that the NPA and Civility policies are enforceable regardless of someone's popularity or contributions. --Barberio (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that really concerns me is this statment, which acknowledges sanctions should most likely be applied:

"that an arbcom case, if opened, would most likely sanction not only MONGO"

If there have been:

1. Likely violation of wikipedia policy (as Arbcom members have stated), and
2. There are a lot of editors who want this case to go forward...

• Why is the Arbcom hesitating to accept this case?

This is the only reason I can personally figure out:

Many members of the Arbitration committee are loathe to upset the community again by sanctioning Mongo further.

I really don't blame the Arbcom for not taking this case. No wikipedian would ever want the same condemnation of the same dozens of powerful wikipedians who condemned the incredibly unpopular Mongo desop.

As I write this, despite the rule violations on all sides, no arbitor seems to want to be the pivotal fourth arbitrator to accept this case.

So like the US Supreme Court often does with incredibly controversial and explosive issues, the arbitration committee may well "punt" by voting to not take this case, and let the "mob" hopefully solve the problem. Jim Wales may simply ban the ED editors. Admins may eventually block or ban both parties, and the Arbcom avoids upsetting influential fellow wikipedians.

Out of courtesy, I want to let you know that I am going to post the last portion of what I wrote here on the Request for Arbitration page, without quoting you. Thanks for listening.

Barberio clearly articulates my views better than I could myself, so I won't say more.Travb (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

email delivery failure

PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 550 <morven@redacted>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table

I have no idea what that means. Do you have another email address I can try? Mine is at gmail.com, the username is coelacan. ··coelacan 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu pending case

I am generally opposed to the communication with Arbitrators outside of the ArbCom pages, but I am merely asking you to read what I posted to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Advise to ArbCom by Irpen since this message would loose part of its relevance once the case is accepted and the acceptance is pending. So, I am posting this message to all Arbitrators who indicated the interest to this case by casting their votes so far. You do not have to respond if you think that my concerns have no merit. Regards, --Irpen (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your challenge

Taking it on board. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova ArbCom

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to see your comment

I was far from expecting you to hit the lowest point in the Durova arbitration, but there we go, it's always the unexpected that happens. I'm ashamed to see your comment here. My response doesn't seem to have interested you or any other arbitrator. I have stopped expecting it; all the same, here it is again. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

I answered this in private email to Bishonen, since she's announced a wikibreak; however, putting the gist of the reply here is probably best.

I regret speculating about Giano's motives. I have struck the relevant part on the proposed decision. You were 100% right to call me on that.

I simply did not see your response until you pointed me to it. It was not specifically being ignored, except inasmuch as I hadn't read the talk page at all since I voted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Mister GJK

Hey Matt, could you explain this: , as I'm trying to review his case and I am finding nothing...unless of course you did a checkuser on him... nat.utoronto 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely banned user Greg Kohs. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kyushu J7W Shinden.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kyushu J7W Shinden.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot 02:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Then, unfortunately, the image will have to be deleted. —Remember the dot 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No big deal; I'm sure someone can find an image with good attribution. This one was uploaded long before we firmed those things up in policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR ArbCom

I don't see the request as a request for ArbCom to decide what the policy should be written as, but more of a request for ArbCom to evaluate the actions of some editors so that the impasse can be breached either way. As it is, the page/policy is basically an edit-war between Admins, with the protection in place. We normal and established users are being prevented from having any input, either by being ignored or by being locked out of the editing process, through primarily ownership issues. There's so much information available and presented that I think this subtle point is being overlooked in the far broader context. wbfergus 12:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that I would vote to accept a more tightly worded and bounded case. The one presented, though, is way overbroad and I can't see it working out well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the further explantion, I will pass it along to COgden. Would this require a new filing or could the existing filing be modified? wbfergus 14:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Decision

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Misplaced Pages. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Misplaced Pages. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Misplaced Pages. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Misplaced Pages’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Misplaced Pages has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Misplaced Pages does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Misplaced Pages claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Misplaced Pages had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Misplaced Pages can improve their product. Misplaced Pages could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Misplaced Pages does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl RFCU

A RfCU for a suspected Tecmobowl sock has been requested. Blnguyen ran the CU but the previous accounts are stale. Do you by any chance have the data from Tecmobowl-Jmfangio CU that you ran a few months back? Nishkid64 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a small poke to check if you have forgotten or if I missed your reply :) -- lucasbfr 13:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio

Hi. Several months ago, you performed a checkuser that revealed that Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was a reincarnation of the banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). I believe that Mrdrip (talk · contribs), based on editing patterns, is another reincarnation. (He instantly resumed the conflict with Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) that had led to the arbitration.) I requested a checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl, but Blnguyen said that it could not be performed because it was stale and to ask someone who performed the original checkuser if they saved the stats. Do you have whatever data is needed to perform this checkuser? Thanks. --B (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL ... I see Nishkid types faster. than I do. ;) --B (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll make a note of that in the RFCU case. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Could you please change the main article's featured article image to Image:Tikse monastery.jpg since this image is clearer, less blurry, more appealing and shows the same subject. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PRR D16, 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.

--Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CBOrgatrope == MyWikiBiz

User:CBOrgatrope was one of a nest of sockpuppets you uncovered in early November - you mentioned that you were pretty sure this was the work of an established sockpuppeteer, but tagged this one as the puppeteer arbitrarily as the CU data did not go farther back. I've uncovered some solid evidence that this was the work of the well-known sockpuppeteer User:MyWikiBiz - the most solid being that one of the puppets' edits was to add this picture of himself to Lake Eola, something he has recently been bragging about on Misplaced Pages Review. With that, the pattern of editing also meshes with the activity of MyWikiBiz's prior confirmed puppets - the initial edits to an account's userpage; the mocking/impersonation/plays-on-words of various admins; the contribution of articles and images about lakes and other aquatic landmarks. I think the case can be considered solved now :) krimpet✽ 08:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured it quite likely, but decided the case didn't need absolute identification of the sockmaster; the bad behavior was sufficient. Thanks for the further checking, however! Although I do find that persistent sockers get very annoyed when you mis-identify them ... always fun. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you ever want to deliberately annoy MyWikiBiz? Agitating him seems to bring about the exposure of some of our best admins as embarrassments to the project. Durova pissed off MyWikiBiz, and look what happened to her. JzG pissed off MyWikiBiz, and then MyWikiBiz discovered with Wikiscanner that JzG was semi-anonymously editing all kinds of articles about wet t-shirt contests and porn stars with enormous breast enlargements. I'd give the link to these facts, but I don't want to bring on a BADSITES war. It would seem to me that the best way to deal with MyWikiBiz is to ignore him, not provoke him with deliberately weak identifications of sockpuppets that aren't his. --72.94.148.152 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (signing anonymously, as I don't want anything to do with a backlash from MyWikiBiz or CBOrgatrope)

Ah, you misunderstand. I don't per se want to annoy him; I find it amusing that people who sockpuppet get all offended when the sockmaster is misidentified, given that confusion is their intent. I'd have thought they'd be amused, rather than offended. I'm not necessarily saying that MyWikiBiz cares; saying that some sockmasters have been offended.

Also, one must note that Durova's errors were unforced, and JzG doesn't appear to be "harmed" by any allegations about what he may have been doing while logged out, true or not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also amused by the high likelihood that 72.94.148.152 is MyWikiBiz himself, talking about himself in the third person. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Brown, Have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? Have you ever considered the further possibility that, if you are wrong, then you are doing an injustice to innocent persons by making these assertions of identity? Have you ever considered the consequent possibility that, if you are wrong, then it is you, My Friend, who are the harasser? Masked And Anonymous (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that a certain individual behind the blocked account MyWikiBiz and others has absolutely, certainly created a number of ban-evading accounts on Misplaced Pages, I don't see that much injustice is being done. I am only accusing that individual of what they have done and, I seem to remember, what they've admitted - unless this person is now claiming to have never done so. (Amusingly, while using another created identity).

It would do you well to stop doing this whole but-what-if-it-wasn't-me game. It's more pathetic than clever, and should be beneath you; that it isn't is rather disappointing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK article

On 1 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PRR E6, 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.

Keep up the good work. Gimmetrow 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EMD 511.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EMD 511.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Please check your email. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing of Jayjg

Morven, please see . There is a significant issue to be addressed here which I'm currently documenting in evidence for the arbitration workshop. If Jayjg's conduct is to be the subject of review in the arbitration, it's only fair to include him in the list of parties. (And given that the page states "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case", are you seeking to become a party?). Cla68 has already asked the clerk to rule on this - please leave the page as it was and let the clerk decide. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you or Cla68 thinks Jay should be a party, please provide evidence and the arbitrators will decide. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I read on the arbitration request for this case, and in some discussion since, I think you're going to see some evidence of Jayjg's involvement. If not, then I was wrong. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I didn't think it was the arbitrators' job to decide who to name as being parties - only who to sanction. The instructions at WP:RFAr#Requesting arbitration state "Fill in the names of the involved parties" and are clearly directed at the initiating parties, not the arbitrators or clerks. There's no provision for third parties to remove names (unless, I suppose, it's a really frivolous listing - which this plainly is not). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

One question Matthew, is Jayjg still on the ArbCom's private mailing list? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of members of the arbcom mailing list is always available at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that Jayjg is on the ArbCom mailing list. Well, another question, if any evidence is presented in this case against Jayjg (or anyone else for that matter who is a current ArbCom mailing list member), will he be removed from the mailing list at least until the case is closed? Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. We have never removed a list member because they are involved in a case and do not intend to change this. We do expect a list member involved in a case, or an arbitrator recused on a case, to not involve themselves in discussions of the case on-list and interact with the sitting arbitrators on that case only in the manner with which other parties to the case can. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, and I understand that most, if not all of the current arbitrators desire that former arbitrators be allowed to remain on the list and take part in ongoing ArbCom discussion as appropriate. The problem is that once an arbitrator becomes a former arbitrator, he/she supposedly become a regular editor again, which means that he/she should be as equally subject to the administrative disciplines and corrective actions issued by the ArbCom and anyone else. If they, however, still have access to the "inner workings" of the ArbCom committee, it gives an appearance of special treatment. Anyway, we'll see how it goes. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles

Morven, can you help me with the Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Spirit articles?? I'm looking at working these up to good article status, and I need all the help I can get.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --Solumeiras 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TOR block of 134.114.27.79

Hey, I noticed that you've blocked 134.114.27.79, as a TOR node, which, it is no longer. I was wondering, if you'd consider either allowing me to unblock it, or, unblocking it yourself please. SQL 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! :) SQL 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist sockpuppets

User:ScienceApologist has recently deleted the sockpuppet category template from the talk pages of his sockpuppets. Part of the template does say "do not delete". I'm not sure where this should be reported, but since you were the admin who placed them, I thought perhaps you should be informed. Dlabtot (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland RfC

Regarding your comments on the Mantanmoreland RfC, I'm not sure you understand that there is in fact an ongoing dispute regarding Mantanmoreland's possible use of multiple accounts to double-vote and feign a larger consensus - his conduct is being called into question. See User:SirFozzie/Investigation#Double !Votes and Dual ArbCom discussion. krimpet✽ 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the RFC needs to include the actual accusations and be certified by the people actually in a dispute with him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They are involved (Durova not that much, but SirFozzie definitely so) - they and others have tried to mediate an peaceful end to his apparent sockpuppetry, but he hasn't cooperated, so they brought it to Requests for Comment, where the community can give their input - the intended purpose of RfC. If RfC is not the right forum for this, then what is? krimpet✽ 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this question I see what you mean. However, Cla68 and SirFozzie have certainly had disputes with these purported sock puppeteers. Cla68, at least, has called for sanctions. I think that Mantanmoreland would prefer not to be sanctioned. Hence, a user dispute. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Recusal from Mantanmoreland ArbCom case

Based on your comments here I'm formally requesting that you recuse yourself from this ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Furthermore, Mr. Bagley is not a part of that arbitration, so my personal feelings about him are not relevant; even if he was, I am permitted to have personal opinions about him. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have already decided what the scope of this case is, then your opinion is relevant and prejudicial. I repeat, please recuse yourself. Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again; no, thanks. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)