User talk:InkSplotch

Gold Stars

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For doing my job for me: specifically, re-ordering the mire of proposed principles and FoFs on the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case to make them readable. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		With gratitude, for helping me file an RfC after my long and fruitless wrestle with the bot. SlimVirgin ^{talk\|contribs} 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking actions

Thanks for adding the motion to the Arbcom template. We shouldn't have missed that one but help is always gratefully accepted. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WNU-KWU interpretation

Thanks kindly! I personally read it Cla68's statement to have a meaning similar 'he may be editing that article because he thinks it's associated with Derek Smart and his history has shown a propensity toward wanting negative things to be associated with Derek Smart' as opposed to 'He has a negative view toward diploma mills, and therefore inputs negative information about diploma mills', my original thinking was that my interpretation made sense since the request for further blocking extended to only that one article, but I only wanted to mention why I was thinking in those terms.

I agree that it's very similar in interpretation anyway, I just noticed that in a prior interaction I came off more short than I intended with someone else. I wanted to let you know I wasn't intending to belittle or deride your point of view, and I honestly am thankful for your research assistance! With regards to your side note, I believe single purpose editors are likely to get further scrutiny, but are not unwelcome outright. They must be uninterested in a neutral point of view (advancing an agenda rather than creating an encyclopedia) to get blocked. This is based off a wikilink reading from when you typed single purpose account though, and not on a well-versed knowledge of Wikipedia rules. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culturally, SPA's tend to be looked at with suspicion - since if you're editing only in a very narrow area, you must have a bias, right? It's not that that's a logical position, but if such an account winds up in some form of dispute resolution it's often likely...which often makes true editors who are simply of a narrow focus loathe to engage in any of the background processes of the wiki, like dispute resolution.

In similar ways, familiarity with wikipedia's processes/procedures, or even simply wiki markup can also bring suspicion down on someone. I'm in programming and training, working with both code and formal documentation on a daily basis. When I first got here years ago, I picked up on wiki markup very fast, and many of the processes fairly quickly - which resulted in a lot of regulars thinking I was a sock puppet.

I've also seen you receive some of the third common form of bias: unregistered accounts. IPs are viewed as temporary (no matter how you actually come about your internet connection), so editor's without an account can be seen as shifty...again, not necessarily a logical conclusion, but the more an IP account engages in contentious areas, the more others want a "name" to hang on someone. Otherwise, they suspect it's a form of sock puppet wherein an established editor deliberately logs out, even proxies their IP address, to gain a new, "neutral" voice. I think that was the reason for Hipocrite's initial reaction - fear that others might mistake you for him.

So anyway, didn't mind expanding on my comments at all. In fact, I spoke up only because I saw what I felt was a simple misunderstanding rather than a deliberate intent to mislead. I've no real views on the larger claims (Cla68's request versus Huffman's response), just thought I might help get things back on track. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change close

Looking quickly down the close, it looks broadly okay but I think you may have omitted some remedies. Cla68 has a battlefield finding but no remedy although remedy 15 (4 support, 2 abstain) is recorded as passing in the implementation notes of the proposed decision and does seem to qualify according to the support table which is set for 8 active arbitrators. I'll take a closer look and may be back if I see any more.

This is no reflection on you; this is a monster case. --TS 14:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to speak to User:Dougweller, he's the actual clerk. I just fixed some minor formatting issues I saw on a couple of headers. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]