User talk:Manning Bartlett

CURRENT STATUS - I'm working on an offline WP project, so apart from clerking tasks I'm not really doing any editing. I'm checking my talk page daily however. Manning (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Manning Bartlett/Links

Somalife

Mr. Bartlett,I had added a page called SomaLife which was an outline of a company that I'm interested in. You had deleted the page but I'm not sure why. The reason stated was ambiguous promotion or advertising. If you read this I'm sure you will note that this was an unbiased review of the company SomaLife. Please indicate in detail why this page was deleted so that we can make the appropriate changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaidaaddison (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) test

Technical hitch

Due to an internets malfunction I'll not be able to contribute to the Expelled discussion for a few days, perhaps a week. Trust you'll be able to make progress without me, apologies for any delay. . . user:dave souza in the temporary public guise of Davesalterego (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth the trouble?

Hi, Manning,

I mistakenly posted this on my own talk page last night, er, this morning.

Thanks for the heads-up as well as for your ear and advice.

Odd--official Wiki policy requires using common sense. I've edited my comment to show that. [Perhaps I didn't save it, or maybe the page automatically reverts. I've just done it again.] It seems the letter of the law here is violating the spirit of the law--obviously the intention of the policy is to prevent cranks from blathering on about all kinds of nonsense, or, conversely, hopeful writers from trying the public waters at Wiki first. I realize policy develops as situations are encountered and this clause may be obsolete. Too bad; it seems designed specifically for cases like this one, where I'm not making anything up but just want the whole context given. I think the very fact that people objected to including the last sentence reveals a bias they hold: Never allow anything--not even his own words--that could possibly be construed as casting Our Exalted Darwin in a poor light.

Policy can never cover every situation; therefore common sense is required. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution--no amount of legal logorrhea can ever cover every contingency. (Oh--you're Australian--they just basically say, "We couldn't list all the people's rights, and whatever we didn't take from them is still theirs even though it's not down on paper.") [See this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMON]

I can't understand why I have to find a reliable article that comments on the biased SciAm article. Of course I won't find one. Who goes around writing things like that? I've never caught, for example, USN&WR second-guessing somebody else's article. At least not to the extent of reviewing it and supplying missing information. Why not just ignore that article and compare Stein's quote to Darwin's original? There's no synthesis there--it would go, "Stein said blah-blah-blah. Darwin's actual text reads blah-blah-blah." I don't see how insisting on saying, "Smith says Darwin said" makes for a better encyclopedia than simply, "Darwin said." In fact, this whole process has taught me Wiki isn't half the encyclopedia I thought it was. Encyclopedia Britannica hires knowledgeable people to write accurate stories. During this process I've discovered Jimmy Wales actually said he doesn't care what the truth is; all he cares about is that his policy is followed. It's his site and he can make whatever rules he wants, but now that I know them I respect the work far less. At least I am fair warned and will be alert in the future when I consult it on any subject that has any PC issues: do not trust.

Just to check how correct my conclusions were, I very appropriately added some information to the article on Richard Sternberg. Shot right down. I'm not going to argue with the PC boys over there. Finding websites that contradict each other has been frustrating. I have given up knowing the truth about the Smithsonian-Sternberg controversy. Somebody or everybody is lying and I have no way of knowing who. [Referring to Sternberg or Scott or Renner or, or, or. NOT to people at Wiki.] Certainly have to take Wiki's PC stance with a grain of salt. Nobody cares that the Mary Poppins article is poorly sourced, nobody cares that an article I wrote on the Caqueta River is unsourced. No, there's an agenda here: allow all kinds of shoddy work, but strictly keep the PC gate.

I do appreciate all the excellent editing people such as yourself and the other parties in this mediation do, all the effort to bring order out of chaos, to revert vandalism and weed out cranks and take time to listen to honest but perplexed people, to say nothing of writing and correcting.

I will be very busy the next couple of days in preparation for a short trip Sunday and Monday, and may just have to drop this, which might be a mercy. I had originally planned to appeal all the way up the line to the very top but, honestly, I've lost my faith in Wiki and am losing the heart for trying to make sense of it all.Yopienso (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

PS It's 2:15 in the morning here and I'm drained and discouraged, feel like I've wasted days of my time. If later I regret being so morose I'll apologize. Have a great weekend! Yopienso (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Working for Wiki

Just curious here--"Hi - just to let you know I'm off for the weekend (it's Friday night here) so I won't be around to carry on the mediation until my Monday morning (Australia time)." Do you work here? I thought everybody was a volunteer, but am amazed how much time they spend here. If that's none of my business, please ignore. Yopienso (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana Meth Project

If you have a moment, I'd greatly appreciate your input in this Talk page discussion. A person previously engaged in wholesale blanking is now discussing at the Talk page, and I'd like to encourage that. Thanks! Whatever404 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We could use an extra set of eyes at Thomas Siebel; an apparently single-purpose account, possibly COI is engaged in a revert war, attempting to instate a version that reads like a CV or resume (the timeline is in reverse, in some places), and it's complete with peacock phrasing, use of honorifics, and lots of unsourced, flowery claims. Thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Thomas Siebel article looks OK at the moment after your repair work, but am now also watching it (as well as the User:Notevenonce account). Cheers Manning (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a moment, please look closely at the differences between the two versions in this diff; you'll see that the majority of the information is indeed there; it's just presented in a simpler chronological formatrather than in the reverse-timeline CV format that the other editor seems to favor (with each new section beginning a new reverse timeline, much to the confusion of the reader). I have since also added the awards, in a paragraph format, though I'm open to changing this last bit. Whatever404 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been outed by my wikiproject statistics...

In generating some data on our current wikiprojects, I just discovered that you're the creator of the very first project way back in September of 2001. That's quite an impact you've made! – ClockworkSoul 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Manning Bartlett, thanks for your action at ANI. AdjustShift (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

uninvolvment

Hi, today AdjustShift finally made a comment on the ANI thread about his (un)involvment. [1] In light of his answer I am even more convinced that his action needs to be re-examined. Yesterday you mentioned that i can launch any mediation/arbitration method about whether or not AdjustShift acted in an uninvolved capacity. Since I'm unfamiliar with most of them could you please advise me which would be most suited to clarify that (un)involvment? Loosmark (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Manning thank you for your advise, i really appreciate it. Loosmark (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark Arbitration Enforcement closure

You closed the ANI thread as "After review by two further (uninvolved) admins, the original admin actions by Sandstein and AdjustShift were upheld." It was Sandstein who imposed the sanctions against Loosmark, not me. I only endorsed his decision, and it was agreed by two other ("uninvolved") admins. If Loosmark really feels that the sanctions imposed against him are unjust, he can ask another admin to review the case, or contact the ArbCom. AdjustShift (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your endorsement was sort of nullified and my appeal was formally reviewed by neutral admin Manning Barlett and I accept his decision. My concern is not that, but rather your, IMO, apparent complete failure of understanding the "uninvolved" concept. I think I'll feel request for comment shortly. I will notify you when I do. Loosmark (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I reopen the WP:AE thread? Let another admin close the thread. AdjustShift (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark - just to echo a comment I recently made at AdjustShift's page. I gave you advice on how to proceed with your conduct complaint concerning Adjustshift because I am duty bound as an administrator to give advice on procedural matters to anyone who asks. This does not constitute an endorsement of your complaint, and on a purely personal note I actually believe your efforts will come to nothing. Manning (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think reopening the thread will be better. Let another admin close it. Thoughts? AdjustShift (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems trivial and unnecessary but I will go ahead and carry out the open/close for you anyway. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know about this message I left on AdjustShift talk page[[2]] Regards--Jacurek (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded on AdjustShift talk page[[3]]. Best--Jacurek (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, really appreciated. I responded on A.Shift talk page also. Best Regards--Jacurek (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Intervention for edit war on Politecnico di Milano

Hi, thanks a lot for handling this so promptly! It was the first time I got into a situation where I couldn't handle everything by just discussing it, so thanks for helping me out :) --Raistlin (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Weeeeeeell, we didn't have to wait for long to have other issues with the same user, this time not logged in: [4]. --Raistlin (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there's a number of other unlogged interventions in the backlog of the article (all in the same set of unsourced edits and reverts), all from the same IP range, which is the block 118.94.0.0-118.95.255.255. HTH. --Raistlin (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current version is largely from my edits, so I'd welcome any other user to chime in and edit it better :) but I think you'll have no difficulties in spotting those edits, they are exactly the same to the word. Thanks a lot once again, I'm just sorry this is getting more painful :( --Raistlin (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again! [5], this time from 118.95.49.185... -- this unsigned comment was from me, Raistlin.

Well, thanks a lot for all the help. You're definitely invited for a beer if you happen to pass by @Polimi :) --Raistlin (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the chuckle

It's always a pleasure to encounter a fellow pedant ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Manning Bartlett, thank you very much for responding on my talk page! AdjustShift (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== Frank Zappa == Thank you manning for your comment . I have edited Frank Zappa's page based on this wikipedia post .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lebanese_people .

---

Bold text

---

Sir you left a note on the Tien Shan Pai discussion page regarding the conduct of the sysop Parakan of accusing a participant of putting a nazi label on someone just by saying good morning in German. After looking at your suggested remedy-its just too intimidating a process. But now that this has brought to your attention by at least 3-4 people, I think it should be investigated and he should have to justify this conclusion or be reprimanded/suspended. I think the average person would be intimidated by the complain (?) page you referenced. 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)' !Daprofessor09 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Safe sex

Since you joined that discussion please explain your reasoning there to justify where this this and this edits lacked neutrality, so I can address your concerns since so far Simon Seed is only reverting.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated that I will recuse from further comment. Manning (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Sincere thanks :), and I regret the delay that has arisen on account of real time commitments. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi Manning. Thanks for your note - I think what concered me most was that the editor is question apparently had either not read the stub I made, or had done so but didn't understand what an academic journal was - in either case I was alarmed that someone with such lack of understanding was tagging things with gay abandon. I see that several other of his/her proposals have been untagged as they are not appropriate. But good to know the admins are keeping an eye on things ... Cheers Jasper33 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Denning, Baron Denning

Quick favour to ask: here User:Proteus moved Alfred Denning, Baron Denning to Tom Denning, Baron Denning, with the edit summary "common name". Our "common name" guideline specificially excludes members of the peerage in most situations, and I immediately left a message asking Proteus to revert. He hasn't been around since, however; would you be willing to move it back (as part of WP:BRD, really)? Ironholds (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it immediately. Manning (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Manning Bartlett. You have new messages at Floquenbeam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Manning Bartlett. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Block

There seems to be some support for the block and some concerns about how quickly it was imposed. I would have preferred it if you had asked that editor to slow down and take a break from editing on those articles while the dispute was discussed. It seems like blocks are used too quickly. But clearly the disputes on those articles are getting disruptive. I'm just always reluctant to see one side punished (maybe because I've been on that side? :) where there's a real content dispute that needs working out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey COM - Look that's fair enough and I'm sorry if this block brought up memories. Firstly as I've noted I don't block often and I always look for opportunities for rehab. And I completely agree that content disputes should be managed carefully. I truly didn't see that here though - this is just a long-term disruptive editor who has exhausted all conceivable forms of patience. Cheers Manning (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Asking_for_audio_is_harassment_campaign.3F

You're right. I've removed the ban request, and cut my section header. I apologise, just getting a little tired of being told I must do something because some other editor decided to go behind my back and tell Kohs I would. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian unblock review

Just FYI - I'm reviewing the Yorkshirian block at the moment, and I've carefully read your comments and subsequent review at ANI. I support your block and understand the reasons for it, but (maybe I'm being over-optimistic) I do believe there's a chance that this was just a temporary blip on Yorkshirian's otherwise much-improved behavioural record. I'm in two minds to be honest, but given the support for their recent contributions from other editors (including those who've had problems with them in the past) I'm leaning towards a highly conditional unblock based on CoM's suggestions and Yorkshirian's apparent acceptance of them. I want further confirmation from Yorkshirian first though, and of course if you have anything more to add to the debate (for example, a topic-ban has been proposed), your input would be very welcome. EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey EyeSerene: I'd be perfectly happy with a 'one final chance, one-infraction-and-you're-gone, no arguing about it later' sort of reprieve. Also I think COM's idea about being restricted to talk pages for a few weeks has merit. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers Manning (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added a two-week talk page-only restriction on articles related to Irish Republicanism, and Yorkshirian has agreed to all the terms, so I've unblocked. Whether they'll be able to keep out of trouble remains to be seen, but I hope so. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday

Happy birthday to a real oldtimer!--Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Eight years?! Wow. Congratulations, and Happy Wikibirthday. You qualify as someone I talked about here, I think. Bumped into you a couple of times the last few days, thought I'd look at your user page to see who you were, saw your userbox, and felt compelled to say "thanks" for devoting that much time to the 'pedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I was feeling very neglected *sniff*, but you've cheered me right up. I like your "Grampa" idea :) Manning (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Quick request - per WP:DPR#AFD, next time you close AfDs, can you add the {{subst:at}} to the top of the page (i.e., before the top section header? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I somehow came across wrong - that was not my intent. I was talking about [6], [7], [8], etc., all of which have a heading that's outside the shaded box. It seems that you put the template below the heading rather than above them. Tim Song (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[9]

Now Thekohs is vandalising pages in order to attack me, and on Wikipedia talk:Wikivoices, he's engaging in gross personal attacks [emphasis his]:

“ To which, I did respond that Shoemaker's Holiday was a morally bankrupt cog in the big Wiki machine of unaccountable treachery. That was as "harassing" as my tone ever got with Shoemaker's Holiday. If an apology is needed to release the audio file from Episode 45, I will be happy to provide a public or private apology to him, whichever he prefers. But, at this point, I suspect no amount of apologizing, groveling, or kissing the ring of Shoemaker's Holiday will bring him down off the very pointy ledge he's decided to park himself upon. -- Thekohser 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do think that you piled things on a little thick; calling anybody "morally bankrupt" and involved in "treachery" is rather extreme for the "offense" of being slower to complete sound-editing of a podcast than you'd like, and this podcast is, as far as I know, an unofficial project not actually part of Wikipedia/Wikimedia and done entirely by volunteer labor; nobody has any enforceable obligations with regard to it. "Harassment" is also rather strong language (and something that has been greatly overused in the past), so there are some overreactions on both sides here. I hope, going forward, a system can be devised to get the podcasts published in a timely manner without being able to fall victim to interpersonal conflict. In particular, if election-related interviews get done in the future for board, ArbCom, or other elections, one would hope that they are able to be published while the voting is still in progress. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "being slower to complete sound-editing" was not at all why I questioned Shoemaker's morality, but if you wish to perpetuate that fiction, you're entitled, Dan. -- Thekohser 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

”

He's quoting a gross personal attack from one of his harassing e-mails as evidence of how he wasn't harassing me.

Can something be done about this? It's getting old. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Next time you're on, if I'm online (DanielB), please ping me :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics

I've offered a solution: basically follow the content policies to the word (which was what I had been trying to push, but my point is finally starting to get through).

This is the source Rmcnew wants to use. It was written (but not finished: "To be continued.") by Olga Krylova, a PhD in math (which is mostly unrelated), but the article was approved and published on Chief Director of institute: Ph.D. in Socionics Prokofieva Tatyana's website. Prokofieva Tatyana, however, does not have much on her outside of her website. ([10]) So, I'm asking: is this source reliable enough? Your answer will likely settle the dispute altogether, once everyone acknowledges it. MichaelExe (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reject your solution. It reeks of NPOV as is as plain to all have competence in judging opinion. You are not impartial. Mediator, I do not believe one person's opinion alone can be binding in this case. The esoterism issue is in need of serious attention. Socionics is an extraordinary science and this an extraordinary situation. It is in need of attention from all relevant parties, or there is risk of a false consensus. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How is socionics an extraordinary science? --Rmcnew (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." MichaelExe (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaking the letter for the spirit. It's the equivalent of putting homeopathy "research" in the psychiatry article. What would you feel like if your discipline was under attack from a crazy like rmcnew? Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: make Rick DeLong a "special expert" like was mentioned on CNN. Give him expert powers to determine what is and is not legitimate for the field. It is well understood that DeLong has the confidence of the experts. I've been studying socionics for five years... DeLong for even longer. Hell, DeLong introduced me -- introduced the entire West -- to the information metabolism model. Everything I know today, I know because of DeLong. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote my response to this on the mediation page (follow this link) Considering he seems to be the only other editor (besides myself) giving any decent amount of quality input I directed the questions to Rick Delong. --Rmcnew (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just recently made a series of counter-arguments listing sources against some claims made by Rick Delong on the socionics talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Socionics.ru_statement_that_the_intertype_relationships_are_compared_to_Dmitri_Mendeleev_Periodic_table_of_the_elements_-_connection_to_the_theory_of_Synergetics_and_Hermeticism_.28counter-argument_to_Rick_Delong.27s_refutations.29 --Rmcnew (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Manning, I know you know the right decision to make on this. :) I'll leave it to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW I found some more information on the PHD credentials of the socionics.ru website for the "Socionic Scientific Research Institute" ... you know, the one socionics institute located in Moscow, Russia that claims to be scientific and compares socionics theory to the Periodic Table, Hinduism, Chakras, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#PHD_in_psychology_associated_with_Moscow_Socionics_Research_Institute --Rmcnew (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The source in question may represent the views of a tiny-minority (although the number of reliable sources in socionics is limited, and Tatyana has 9 others working with her [11], but only 2 of these have PhDs, the rest, bachelors of socionics), so this presents another point against its inclusion in the article.

P.S. I'm sorry if the discussion on your talk page is getting a little long. XP I'll try to redirect it elsewhere. MichaelExe (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Debate against the claim from some editors who want to discredit the Moscow Socionics School by claiming the techniques there are fringe compared to other schools

There are some editors who are attempting to isolate the credibility of a whole socionics school that is located in Moscow, Russia, for reasons that are insufficent to wikipedias standards. In comparison it should be noted that scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia. In fact, if you were to look at a webtranslated version of this article ( click here for help) from the Kiev school and compare this to the chakra article (click here for help) from the Moscow school you would see that it is absolutely rediculous to make a claim that any of the socionics schools are any more scientifically credible than the next. Because 2 or 3 editors sware up and down this material is a minority fringe isn't sufficent enough for it to be claimed as such, especially when there are several PHDs in socionics and other fields who are knowingly allowing (and even encouraging) these sort of strange research comparisons between socionics and esoteric and religious philosophies to go on, while there are no known reliable sources where any such PHD in the socionics realm has condemned these strange techniques. In any case, I am sure that this would be enough to help you make your decision. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place

Hi guys - I'm following everything at the Talk:Socionics page. Let's keep everything there please. Cheers Manning (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal from socionics mediation

I am hereby resigning from the rest of the socionics mediation debate due to lack of time and interest. I believe my continued involvement would take many hours of my time because of fundamental disagreements between me and other participants. Furthermore, they are highly motivated to promote a certain viewpoint of socionics that is nonrepresentative of the field as a whole, whereas I am weakly motivated to present it accurately. The effort required of me to counter McNew's excessive focus on the esoteric hobbies of Russian socionists is simply not worth it to me. I have stated my opinions and stand by all my existing statements, but I do not wish to continue with the debate. McNew, I suppose, will get his way, and introduce clarity in the socionics article (I'm being sarcastic) with a fair discussion of the esoteric basis of socionics, such as the Wikisocion article he has written about the Esoteric Foundation of Socionics. --Rick DeLong (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to -Rick DeLong- withdrawal from socionics mediation

It should be duely noted that I do indeed personally object to and reject the hypothesis that socionics has no esoteric ties, and I believe that proponents who take the stance that there is no esoteric or protoscientific foundation are simply functioning as apologists for the theory. I do indeed personally believe, as there is evidence to the case, that socionics is related to hermetic doctrine in technique and purpose. I do admit that within the socionics organization it would be difficult to impossible to find any sort of admission to this fact from a reliable socionics sources, however. So, the view itself may not be notable enough for wikipedia for that very reason.

As far as wikipedia is concerned I am resigned to represent a neutral view on the matter. I would be content with there being neutral admission to the esoteric tendencies in socionics theory, but on a person note I disagree highly with those who fight against the evidences that socionics has a relation to hermeticism. If socionics is not itself an offshoot to hermeticism, it cetainly has alot of noticable similarities to hermeticism in its methodology. However, I do resign that any efforts to relay this could only be considered origional research on wikipedia and therefore may not be notable enough to mention in the article, excepting discussion on the talk page.

However, I should note that the tendencies that could be stated from reliable sources (according to wikipedia's standards) which do indeed correspond to hermeticism and current new age theories would be notable enough, in my opinion, to mention. Though, maybe with little to no mention that these things correspond heavily to new age or hermeticism unless that was also mentioned in the source article.

While comparisons to socionics and hermeticism by myself exists, I don't think that other editors should confuse my own personal comparisons to legitimate practices in socionics theory that correspond to hermeticism and therefore state that these practices are non-notable, because these practices do exist and are notable. Hermetic links are non-notable. Actual practices which are exactly like hermeticism, new age theories, and alternative medicine are likewise notable, regardless of similarities. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to show that there are similarities I submit the following, while not necessarily a reliable enough source to quote in the article, it does indeed show that socionics exists and has been adapted into an alternative medicine with the usage of chakras and bio-energy, which comes from the new age and hermetic movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#socionists_have_turned_socionics_into_a_therapy_akin_to_the_alternative_medicine_technique_of_vibrational_medicine

This is correct: "scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia." Note: "scientifically credible." But as I understand it, the issue is not who is producing more scientifically useful research (um, neither?), but which statements can be considered representative of the field of socionics as a whole. To cite Olga Krylova's hypothesis on the relation of socionic functions to chakras, or even to suggest that "socionists believe that the functions correspond to chakras" would be incorrect, as these views are not representative of the socionics community. --Rick DeLong (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what Rick Delong says above and beliefs in chakras and bio-energy are representative of the socionics community, just not necessarily among the whole of the community. Here is a website that is sponsoring a socionics workshop where the chakras and bio-energy are being discussed in relation to socionics theory, and are emphasized as something that creates good health. http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html --Rmcnew (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Below is a translation of http://ru.laser.ru/authors/kudr/index.html

Introduction course

The original training course Socionics, which we propose is aimed, above all, the fact that each of the students better understand themselves, saw their abilities and talents, was able to sort out their own problems. Mastery of this knowledge will help a person not to be blind in his life relatively themselves and others, knowingly make important life choices. Very specific recommendations on how to adjust the relations within the family and at work, with close and distant. The core rate - skills testing (type definition) people. The proposed method of testing is based on the art of listening to his interlocutor, and hence on the art of talk is tested on subjects of interest to him. This is akin to the art of journalistic interview. Then, the semantics of speech, we do meaningful for us to conclusions. Learning to understand the semantics of the individual (after all, the meaning given to words, everyone has his own) - is a task comparable to the task of learning a language. First, we teach the alphabet (in Socionics is a mental functions). Then study the individual model of the psyche of each of 16 types. Once this is done, we can determine psychotype rights. You will receive a full range of skills in this procedure. Practice course provides specially selected videos, printed teaching materials, games and exercises testing employed members of the group on request. The practice takes more than 3 / 4 of the course. The final part of the course (for those who have already mastered the language of Socionics) is devoted to the relationship and ways of their correction. The course provides new, but already widely proven methodology for determining the types of copyright and intertype relationships with knowledge on bio-energy (the chakras and bio). An experienced specialist will offer self-correction techniques biofield and meditation to improve your self-esteem, that really helps blend in any team and to establish family relationships. Classes are held in intensive mode - 5 hours 1 times a week on Sundays. Cozy room, tea, chamber environment (groups 5-8 persons), individual approach. Studying in a group you feel that Socionics - is not only interesting and practically useful knowledge, but also a profound personal experience, clarify your unique world view. And on this basis can a real personal growth.

This shows that socionics has been adapted as an alternative medicine and is being used as something similar to vibrational medicine. This is also similar to some energy healing methods, such as reiki.

IRC

You around? KnightLago (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Manning Bartlett's Day!

User:Manning Bartlett has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Manning Bartlett's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Manning Bartlett! Peace, Rlevse 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bible

Sorry, Manning, I did not see your note on the Bible article until just now. We had reached a consensus on this in another article. Biblical should always be lower case. I am in the process of going over the religion articles, where virtually every religious term had been captalized. I am using WP:MOS about capitalization. Thanks for your help. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on EE case page

Are comments aboutgang rape appropriate for ArbCom case pages? EdChem (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate? Probably not. However the comment does not breach any policy or Arbcom rule as such, so I don't have clear grounds to remove it. (This is chiefly because it is on a /Talk page - had it been said on a workshop or evidence page I would have authorised to refactor it immediately.) Manning (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer

I have answered your question at my discussion page. - Andre Engels (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Uh, I actually agree that some of the comments you've removed were probably undue - there's just so much frustration with this stuff.radek (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job on Mark Levin

This[12] is perfect! I was trying to help out but you've nailed it, a perfect example of adminsitrative attention to restore order. I'm not a regular there so I'll just slink back to my normal editing space. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL - makes me want to quote "Team America": I AM serious. This is my serious face. Manning (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding an editor you warned on this article, you may want to look at his recent revert “war” at Byron York. Also, I placed a comment regarding this on his talk page here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to settle down. This User:BobMifune guy reminds me of the line, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." I think I'll head to bed now. Thanks for keeping an eye on the Levin mess. (But of course, the Byron York article has no bearing on this, and it was pointless for Spike ot even insert himself into this discussion.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then. I thought it was the same thing just spread over two articles. For that, I apologise. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just agreeing with the other comments above - your approach is level-headed, direct and unmistakeable in terms of laying out what will and won't be tolerated. We need that to happen more often. Nice one. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that Tony. Nice to see I'm not the only one who never figured Talkback out LOL :) Manning (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Manning, I too want to say thank you. Thank you. --20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on WP:BLP

Manning, if you have the time, I have a question regarding policy, and the enforcement thereof. The issue comes up with reference to the Mark Levin page, but would be applicable in a variety of instances. The WP:BLP calls for questionable content to be 'deleted immediately,without discussion'; and that reposting or reverting is allowed only after gaining a consensus. That is how I read it, but the opposite seems to be true on that page: disputed content is reposted immediately, and without regard for consensus. Am I misunderstanding the policy? Thanks.76.93.65.255 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I have adopted the role of "Conduct referee" at Mark Levin I'm going to deliberately avoid getting into a content policy debate. However I will take your request to the administrator's noticeboard and arrange for other input. Regards Manning (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting clerk actions

The edit that I reverted did not contain an indication that it was a clerk action. In fact you gave no edit summary whatsoever. I did not even know you were a clerk. Might I humbly suggest that before brusquely taking others to task, you make some minimal effort to indicate that you are a clerk and are acting as such? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!!!

Yes! I have rollback, dont worry Manning Bartlet, I will not let you down! Thanks you soo much! you dont know how hard it is to revert vandals the really old way!--Coldplay Expert 23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem - you have a good record. Thanks for all your hard work. Manning (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators

Well, I feel like I've just come across one of the original developers of The Matrix. 8 years is a lot of time. I was wondering if you could help me put together a "History of the Wikipedia administrator position" section in my draft article: User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator? I know the position varies across language-versions of Wikipedia (is language-version the correct term, btw?) and perhaps you know some foreign language sources that would help me round out the draft article with a worldview of the subject? Any help would be mucho appreciated. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On the recent set of ArbCom motions

Um, are you sure that "the undertow restricted" passed? It's included in the announcement & the motions archive, but it seems that it does not have enough support. Tim Song (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugger. That is what is known as a "clerical error". Fortunately another clerk noticed it and it has been repaired already. I've left a correction statement on the admin and arb noticeboards in case any confusion remains. Manning (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection revert

Hi there. I noticed you reverted the full protection that I had set to expire on the 9th due to a report on WP:AN3. This is fine if you feel that the edit war had been resolved, but it looks like there was still some revert warring going on (including over BLP issues). In the future, all I ask is that you drop a note on my talk page just to let me know if you're going to revert in a situation like that that so that I can keep an eye on the page. Thanks a million, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - very sorry for that! There was a load of things I was handling at the time and this slipped through the net. Not good form and I apologise :) Manning (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you sincerely for your quick notification of parties to the date delinking motion. I appreciate it, as well your general responsiveness and helpful attitude. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

pixar/disney fancruft thanks

Thanks for semiprot on List of Pixar film references. Agreed, it's hard to keep it clear of unreferenced items and every bit of help is appreciated. If you have a moment, would you care to share thoughts on the best way to go about semi-protecting some other articles that have been serially vandalized by anon IPs over the past months? We've talked about an IP block vs the normal temp page protection which temporarily helps - but having difficulty getting any action. Advice appreciated. SpikeJones (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion deleted.

Alright, thanks - I wasn't sure where to put, since this case has sprawled so much. Would it be alright if I added roughly the same thing to my "Evidence" section - Russavia's conduct during the case is very much relevant to the case itself, the whole case more or less began with him being blocked and the proposal to unblock him was one of the initial Proposed decisions.radek (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Purpose of Wikipedia"

Hi Manning, could you please restore my original contribution [13]. Most Arbcom cases I have seen have a "Purpose of Wikipedia" principle in the proposed decision, for example here. This is missing here, and I was addressing this section directly to ArbCom and it is totally relevant to this case. The rest of the stuff regarding songs and stuff can remain deleted as that is off topic. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence was relevant. The remainder was not as it was a discussion of the "nature of Wikipedia". Manning (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Manning, the whole thing is relevant as I am framing a particular argument to the ArbCom, as the principles underpin the entire outcome of the case. Since I am the one subject to potential sanctions here, I think you should allow me to address the committee in a way that may (or may not) help my defence. --Martintg (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll reinstate it, but will not allow any further discussion. Manning (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on M Levin page, abusive edits

Sorry to bother you with this, but once again we are having difficulty with an editor on the Mark Levin page reverting disputed material without discussion or consensus. The editor is Gamaliel, who I understand now is supposedly an administrator(?) and should know better. Since repeated reminders of the rules do not seem to affect him, I expect the only effective solution will be a block.Flyer190 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I scanned and found nothing I regarded as abusive. Regardless I have posted the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged_.22admin_misconduct.22_at_Mark_Levin to get input from uninvolved administrators. Manning (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

supposed revert

You scared me for a second. I was about to start changing all my passwords and blanking my user page. Remember, people is paranoid here.radek (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia section, again

Manning, thanks for giving me the opportunity to present my statement. If you carefully read my response to the IP, who suggested the committee was giving stronger sanctions to those "who had exhausted the patience of the community", it contains a plea to the committee to consider the findings of a previous case involving me and a statement of reflection in regard to the mailing list. This is all relevant to the Proposed decision against me, so I'm not sure why you want to excise it from the talk page so soon. --Martintg (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not excised anything - the "will be archived soon" is just a generic aspect of the "closing" template. I left your follow up comments, but I closed it at that point because I do not want the discussion to get out of hand. My original reasons for excision were because it did not - at face value - appear to be strongly related to the proposed decision. My attitude changed when you provided the back story. I have been instructed by Arbcom to strictly maintain discipline and relevance on this case, and these are my sole criteria for deletions. Manning (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks again. --Martintg (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

My password to email account where had my wiki password stored didn't work and I had to reset my account by google assistance. The same happened to other accounts I used from my computer. I would rather not describe this in detail in open due to security concerns. While I have regained access to some of the accounts, I understandably do not trust them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just let me know when you have regained control of your Molobo account to your satisfaction. Please alert me using your "MyMoloboAccount" though, as I will ignore any messages from the Molobo account until I am certain it is no longer compromised. Manning (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for clerk action

I requested clerk action in this thread [14] (somewhere in between Molobo's posts). Please let me know if and how this is going to be dealt with. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do, I wrote to Skapperod to write me what he wants striken down, instead of dragging clerks, but it seems he refuses personal contact with me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to Skapperod to write me what he wants striken down - Moot, yet I did not receive any such message. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thank you for clerking. However, in your clerking post, you wrote that you consider my post to be "flamebait", because you think arbcom has certainly "already looked at Molobo's role closely".

Actually, the whole post is about arbcom not communicating their assessment to the public. I have no way to be certain whether or not arbcom is aware of the evidence at all, how they evaluate this (there is no fof) and what they are going to do about it (there is no remedy). Imagine this evidence came up at an administrators' noticeboard, and get closed w/o comment and no action. I consider this to be very unlikely.

Please reconsider your assessment of my motives. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I considered it to be "flamebait" because it presented nothing new and was worded in a highly biased manner which I regard as little more than a thinly veiled attempt to provoke a response. Had you only wished for a clarification of how the committee viewed the actions of Molobo, it could have been worded far more neutrally. I only permitted it to survive because there actually WAS a legitimate question beneath the rhetoric. Manning (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you take it that way. Is there a specific wording that you want me to change? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative blocks

Regarding User:Molobo, I am wondering why his user and talk page were replaced by the notices? Isn't is common to add such notices at the talk of the page and leave the remaining page as it was underneath? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of the enormously high interest in the EEML case, Molobo's page is presently a high traffic one. It was important that anyone (particularly Arbcom members) who wandered by Molobo's page understood the situation immediately. Also because of Molobo's controversial past, it was important to communicate that this block was not user-conduct related. I have provided links for full restoration of the removed material. Manning (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of administrative notices here, I also believe that user DonaldDuck was also ublocked only for this case, just like Molobo: [15]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted - thanks. Manning (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Very suspicious edit

Please take a look at this edit. Jacurek intends Brigitte's comments so that it appears that Brigitte agrees with Jacurek instead of with the IP. I know that it may not be possible to check every single edit, but you really should keep an eye on things like this. Offliner (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciated being alerted to edits that may be offensive, I strongly object to being preached to, or being subjected to what I regard as attempted coercion. You are thus issued with a conduct warning. Manning (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I understand that it may be extremely hard to notice such edits. I really should have formulated my message in another way. My intention was not to preach or to coerce, and I'm honestly surprised how you interpreted my words in this way. Apologies. Offliner (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - I've withdrawn the warning. Manning (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit and while I certainly agree that the indent is questionable, I am unable to conclusively read it as malicious. I have refactored it. Manning (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I did not have any bad intentions and placing of the message was totally coincidental. I would like however to draw your attention to this[[16]][[17]][[18]]. I'm afraid that these are attempts to present me in a very bad light here and I'm protesting against such behavior.I'm being attacked/followed by many different IP's and new users recently[19][[20]][[21]] and I'm very alerted to accusations.--Jacurek (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek - I accept your explanation re the indent in good faith.

Re the other matter, I can appreciate you do not like those comments. However for the edits that occurred outside of Arbcom space, I have no authority. (My actions outside of Arbcom pages are limited to specific enforcement of Arbcom directives.) I have deleted the entire exchange that occurred within Arbcom space. Manning (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and accepting my explanation.--Jacurek (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence section

Hi, I was just looking over the evidence section and noticed something: Right at the beginning of the page, right below the table of contents there's a big red warning template which says: Due to the private nature of the contents of the alleged mailing list, the following rules are in order: * No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s). Looking over the Evidence section quickly, I want to note that most persons obeyed this warning - posted references to mail in the date format but refrained from posting quotes. However, user MK is currently busy quoting from the emails left and right [22]. Can you please fix this, and ask MK to stop? Thanks.radek (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted MK asking for proof of this exemption he/she claims to have. Manning (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if he got some kind of exemption that's fine. Of course, there was no way I'd know about something like this, hence my comment.radek (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also (sorry to bother - there's just so much noise in all this) this [23] is pretty straight up flaming on the PD page.radek (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Hi Manning, at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop#Posting_of_personal_email, Vecrumba has made what could be construed to be a legal threat. I have already suggested that he refactor his comments to make it completely unambiguous as to whether there is or isn't a legal threat, but perhaps you wouldn't mind asking him to also do as such, for it would be silly to for an editor to get blocked for making what could be construed as a legal threat, at an arbitration case no less. Thanks, --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I shall attend to it. I will remove your comment to Vecrumba solely for the sake of not adding fuel to the fire. Manning (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Arbcom permission for EEML evidence

Done. Hopefully, Committee will give unambiguous answer on quotes soon. Cya, M.K. (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI Postings regarding the EE case

Hello! There was a recent posting at WP:ANI regarding the EE case which you are clerking. Some participants were commenting that obtaining the opinion of the case clerk would be beneficial, thus I thought I would drop you a note to let you know. The discussion is at ANI under "Brews Ohare's right to collect evidence". Here is the diff that requests clerk opinions. The situation is a bit dramatic, but I suppose you are used to that. —Finn Casey * * * 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Finn, but that's actually related to the Speed of Light case, not EEML. User:Hersfold is clerking that one. I'll send him a note. Manning (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just caught that. I don't know how I got you mixed up. Writing too quickly I guess. How embarassing... Sorry to bother :) —Finn Casey * * * 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. And just FYI, all clerks work on all cases, we just assign someone to take primary responsibility. Hence it is quite acceptable for you to contact any clerk about any arbcom issue at any time. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposal at PD

I posted a comment at the PD page here: [24]. Please let me know if there's anything unwarranted in the text. I am mostly concerned that the main point of the proposal - which I think belongs on the PD page - is there.radek (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EEML

Could please explain this? Offliner (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Am relocating the most extensive evidence sections as the evidence page is now completely unmanagable. Am doing several. You just happened to be first. Manning (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably a good idea. But would it be possible to leave a summary on the main page, such as this one in a previous case? Offliner (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you give me five more minutes, all affected editors (including you) will have a talk page message explaining all about that. Manning (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my little deletion on the Proposed Decision Talk page, this is connected with [25]. There is a thread on the website Free Republic now I cannot link to it because Wikipedia rightly identifies it as spam), where they are discussing that edit, and propose to find IPs. I suppose they will only be able to prove that I am not Carter's clerk Velamoor, but one can never be too careful. Restore it if you think I have no right to do that. Cleanse it from history if you think even that is necessary. Thanks for your attention to that page.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The current state seems fine at first glance. Thanks for the update. Manning (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Will try to keep cool

Ok, no problem. Please let me know if at any point I step over the line.radek (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

I would welcome restoration of my evidence, the current situation is that accusations against me and other parties, that are far larger are clearly visible for reading, while my defence has been removed from readers visibility. I would welcome restoration of that, or equal treatment for much larger texts that have remained. I do not view current situation as fair.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would not a summary of your main points serve just as well? I decided which evidence to relocate solely on the basis of whether or not I could make sense of it by the time I got to the bottom. In your case I had lost all context. I (and more importantly - the Arbs) find it much easier to comprehend and absorb in its current form. Manning (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Molobo. I'll be summarizing mine in the next day or two on the main evidence page, if you need any assistance let me know. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Relocation of EEML evidence

Hello. I understand the desire to make Evidence list manageable. However I think it needs minor improvement. For instance, this part of evidences I added not long ago and soon afterward it was moved to subpage; I think such approach is unpractical - Arbs, involved parties are in different time zones and quite often it is impossible to review evidences in first 24 h. Therefore I propose certain improvement - the new evidences should be placed on the page page of Evidences page and after, lets say, tree or four days moved to the subpage. This will ensure efficiency, and as well as that nobody missed new evidences. I hope it is ok with you. Rush to improve my E section in this fashion. M.K. (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not practical - I would be spending hours trying to track who posted what and when. My simple rule is that as soon as the evidence exceeds a pre-determined length (equivalent to more than three scrolls of my rolling mouse button), the entire section gets moved. I know exactly what the arbs are doing at the moment regarding this case and so please trust me, my solution is the best for all concerned. Manning (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - I am actually totally unconcerned as to how the public accesses or interprets evidence. The arbs are the only audience that need to be accommodated. Manning (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I myself will move my new evidences after arranged time limit (two days or so), so this will eliminate baby siting :) M.K. (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Put ALL new evidence on your new page. Manning (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I hope this style of summary is good. M.K. (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's ideal. Manning (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will finish that work ASAP. M.K. (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to respond to this "evidence" in detail - should I also make a separate new page for the response? Also, please understand that I will need some time to fully address all these smears.radek (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Radek - I would recommend linking to the sections you are disputing. Create a heading, then below that write :"In reference to <<link>>. This way the arbs can follow the argument and aren't forced to try and dig around forever just to make sense of it. Due to the enormous volume of material I am trying to do what I can to make it intelligible for the arbs. I'm sorry for the extra work but it has become necessary. With regret I must also add that you need to hurry - the arbs are bunkering down over the next four days to really address this case. Manning (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be able to respond only on Monday due to RL matters, is that ok ? The extra need to edit the evidence in complicated way is not helpful in this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As you have not added any new evidence for a while it is not a big concern either way. The arbs are already familiar with what you have presented, and also know where it is for when they wish to refer back to it. As I said previously, my main priority was to make your evidence more usable during the deliberation phase that is currently underway. My comment to Radek about haste was in regard to new evidence he wished to present. Manning (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will need to respond to new accusations that have been presented after my last post.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Early days

Hello, Manning, pleased to meet you. I bow to your experience on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you have written an essay or something, where you related the early days of Wikipedia (apart from your userpage). Best wishes, Anna Lincoln 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna. Um, no. No-one has ever expressed an interest before. :) Manning (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible problematic section

Hi Manning, at EEML Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Trespass may be a problem in that it is basically just rehashing the same thing that has been rehashed over and over and over. Could you please look at it, perhaps it needs to be archived, or whatever. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And next time you're looking at the EEML clusterfuck, perhaps you'd like to ponder this so-called evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clusterfuck? PMSL...haven't heard it described as that...until now. :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I request a warning be issued to Russavia for their derisive commentary. And let's not indulge the predictable "I can make any threats and insults I want, they're not serious, they have a smiling face" comeback. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, this is Manning's talk page, so I am not going to get into any discussion here, but your post is obviously trolling by yourself, for if you look at the post directly above me, well....need I say more? :) --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as arbcom does not reveal where the archive came from, I and any other mailing list member are free to maintain the evidence is the product of hacking as all mailing list members have indicated they are not the source. As long as this does not change, I see no issue with my requesting that findings regarding acts of contrition be withdrawn as speculative and prejudicial unless there is proof a mailing list member is lying regarding their not leaking the archive. It's a simple request.

   That it has been "hashed" over and over is irrelevant since arbcom chose to "rehash" it again by proposing a finding in this regard. Striking the finding solves the rehashing issue. Don't blame me for "rehashing." Russavia's request is a blatant attempt to quash the issue which arbcom has chosen to reopen. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Russavia's above comment is not a warnable offence. I think Vecrumba certainly has a right to request the motion be stricken, but beyond that the discussion has been thoroughly explored. Manning (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding date delinking case

Hi. Regarding the motion about the date delinking case, I think the necessary majority has been achieved. Is there a specific waiting period required before the motion is closed? Thanks for any insight or clarification you may offer. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume you missed this diff from yesterday. When we (the clerks) have not been explicitly told by Arbcom to close a motion we first issue a notice indicating our intention to close within 24-48 hours. (This gives the arbs time to tell us otherwise if there is further discussion they want to have)

As the time has elapsed I will be closing the matter fairly soon - I just have RL things to do first. Manning (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can I copy assesment regarding this [26]

Here: [27]

Basically the same request was copied two times. I believe certain information would be of interest to parties judging this on AE.

If you don't agree then I will fully accept your decision.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as you keep it succinct and civil then I won't interfere. Manning (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Molobo was granted a Temporary and restricted unblock to participate in Arbitration case only, under the condition: "If you edit outside these pages, your account will be re-blocked indefinitely." This obviously applies also to User:MyMoloboaccount, Molobos reincarnation. Manning Bartlett, can you explain to me what is your reasoning to allow MyMoloboaccount to edit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jacurek? Are you entitled to do so, is your decision backed up by Arbcom? To make things worse: Molobos request was about supporting Jacurek, one of the other members of the EEML, in a conflict with a third editor. Which is one of the purposes of the EEML. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will keep it to informing about already existing sanctions and past rulings of administration.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthead - Ah, very good point. Unfortunately I am guilty of "inadequate diligence" here - I had only interpreted Molobo's request in terms of what would be appropriate user conduct and had completely forgotten that he was operating under an editing restriction. I shall notify Molobo immediately of my withdrawal of permission. (A permission I certainly do not have the authority to give). As this was my mistake, I will email Arbcom on his behalf to get their verdict. Manning (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Matthead found his way here to comment on a case that apparently has absolutely nothing to do with him. However then one has to remember that Matthead was the prime suspect of operating the Varsovian account, an account which appeared just after Matthead and a argument with Jacurek and that the account Varsovian provokes Polish editors, that Skapperod used a note that "Varsovian" put on his talk page as evidence in his complaint against Jacurek and then everything starts to become a little more clear. Loosmark (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)