User:Fys/talk archive8

Irishpunktom Arbitration

David, User:Raphael1 has just reminded me of our idea to file an RfC in regards to Irishpunktom's repeated edit warring and demonstrations of bad faith editing. Well User:Tony Sidaway has filed and RfAr involving him and I'm thinking that we should add ourselves as parties to to it. What's your view on that? Netscott 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added my comment. I can see the logic in becoming an involved party, and will give it some thought. David | Talk 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm a bit sorry to see how this is going in your regard, hopefully how it all turns out will ultimately be for the best. Netscott 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put in a word for you but I'm not sure what the protocol would be without having previously commented on the case. Any suggestions? Netscott 22:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are my comments... I think either of my councils regarding remedy corresponding to yourself would be fair but optimally based upon what I know of Irishpunktom's habit of editing in less than good faith ways, no injunction should be imposed upon you. Hope that helps. Good luck. Netscott 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

David, following suggestions from User:Tony Sidaway who copied over some details from the proposed decision to the workshop, I've adjusted my original commentary a bit and added additional commentary there. As a result there is now a place for involved parties and others to comment regarding the proposed decision to have you desysoped. I'd advise you to consider adding commentary there yourself. See ya. Netscott 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom opened

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New userbox

In case you're interested, I just made a new userbox that you might like. I figured it would be appropriate. Peter G Werner 04:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is frequently accused of being a Zionist.

Warnings

The user Bignole left warnings on my talk page for the express purpose of provoking a flame war. I believe the warnings are unwarranted, and to my knowledge he is not an admin. May I remove them? CmdrClow 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anne Milton link

Ahh, you beat me to a self-revert by a minute. I thought at first that it was just an attack blog that someone had put at the bottom of the page, but then realized my error; apparently you changed it back before I had a chance. You move pretty fast! JDoorj a m Talk 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush's Mistakes

I am glad that you deleted Bush's Mistakes. A comprehensive treatment of this topic surely would have consumed all of Wikipedia's storage space. george 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review an deletion made contrary to consensus

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

For moving the process forward. I have never seen a 3-1 keep vote be overturned by a single admin (these aren't sockpuppets, if you check). If you could restore it to my user space, I can then have access to the interwiki links so that I can better show the deletion reviewers that what's encyclopedic in Croatian or whatever should be encyclopedic here. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, based on postings on the closing admin's talk page, at least two other editors would like to be kept in the loop on the deletion review process to press the case for retention of the article. User:Pasquale and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise are the two, and in response to their inquiry at the closing admin's talk page, the closing admin is standing firm. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv, I got your "Oh, the irony..." message. What have you done to get yourself in such trouble? I have been contributing to the Wikipedia for a couple of years now, but must have somehow managed to stay away from "desysopping" wars, as I hadn't run into this term yet until today! Pasquale 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Note

Yes, re-reading my talk page I see that you notified me first. I'd been away a while and Motor's was the first comment I saw. I've no qualms about the procedure thus far and I certainly intended no criticism of your conduct. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, then - no offence taken. David | Talk 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsolved murders in the UK

Hi David. What do you think of the unsolved murders article? At the rate thigs are going it will be a very long list soon. -- Phildav76 09:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense?

I reviewed the criteria and I thought the page met "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." It is garbage and unencyclopaedic - why defend it. Maybe I am a little humourless this evening but Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. If one chose to make sense it fits into this category. I shall MfD it.--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I live in a country where people do dress up as superheroes and climb important public buildings for all sorts of reasons. It's not meaningless to suggest (however bizarre such a situation would be) that someone might be inclined to do so in order to make a point about a Wikipedia entry. That entry in the patent nonsense definition refers to statements like "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously", not to bizarre but possible things. David | Talk 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem with verifable information about people who do indeed do these things. I think we have quite adequate policies and guidelines already for resolving content disputes. This page was not devloped as policy, not even as tongue in cheek. It is being used by bored users who have little to contribute, for example F 22 (talk · contribs)--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost

I saw your addition to the Signpost Newsroom. Are you going to cover this story, or would you like me and/or other writers to cover it? Let me know. --Randy Johnston (‽) 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is completely fine with me, and I'm sure it won't be a problem with anyone else. Feel free to draft the article on a subpage in your userspace and I'll check it. Be sure to link to the article on the next issue page. --Randy Johnston (‽) 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Winterton

elements cross-posted

David,

Re. your edit, "PC" is only used used for Peers because any sane publication would say "The Right Honourable" in front of PCs, and you can't tell with Peers from that because they already are. Also, I'm rather confused by your statement that it's not the house-style to use "MP", given that we have been doing so for years now on many of them...

James F. (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We use a made-up new form of address for every article on a Peer. I hardly think worrying that stating PC in the PNLs is the straw for the camel's break. Right now, the style that you are enforcing, in conjunction with other, admittedly-stupid style conventions, actively removes useful information from articles. Think to yourself - "how does this make Wikipedia a better encyclopædia?".

Hmm. Obviously, "MP" as PNLs should go solely on the articles of anyone who is an MP now. It should technically not be present after Parliament is dissolved, though that's a bit more work than I think is sensible. That's not opening a can of worms - protocol is quite clear on where and when the PNLs should be used. For the few MPs who have died in office, almost none of them have died in the current Parliament, and over time, said number will always decrease; if necessary, we can keep "MP" as PNLs for recently deceased MPs up until the Parliament wherein they died is dissolved.

James F. (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We used that argument, if you recall - it "lost". Isn't ochlocracy wonderful? (Though given your job, you'd probably say "yes" ;-).)

By your argument, why do we not remove the PNLs from every article, then? Almost all of them "mention in the introductory text" that they are what they say they are a Bt or SRS or FRSA, after all. It seems a tad odd to ignore our general conventions in the one regard of using "MP". And we use "MSP", "AM", etc. almost without fail - why is Parliament so terribly especial?

James F. (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

P. K. van der Byl - FAC

David. Thanks for your note. Obviously, I cannot post a Support message on this - although I might try a Supportive Comment message if things aren't going too well. Have you looked at Good Article candidature?. That seems a much more relaxed exercise than FAC. The people who contribute to these FAC assessments seem to be a small group with very narrow preoccupations. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 12:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

David. I had just posted a "Supportive Comment" when I got your note. The article was just a stub when I started on it and worked it up to a point when I nominated it as an FAC for the first time. You rather took it over at that point (fine by me) but for me to post a Support would be a fix. It just would not be the same. See how it goes. If things are looking finely poised, then I might switch to a straight Support, and someone can strike that out if they are so minded. Bob BScar23625 14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

David. Take care not to write anything that might indicate even a very slight degree of irritation. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dbiv. I read through the intro of this article and it is much better! Keep up the good work! QuizQuick 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll go change it right away. :) QuizQuick 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

David. This has been going on since 3 July - which seems an unusually long time. The current state of play is : 1 "weak Object" (QuizQuick), 1 Object (TheGrappler) and 3 Supports (BScar23625, D-Rock, Robth). Perhaps you should press for the matter to be closed?. Bob BScar23625 19:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

David. See my entry on the Raul654 talk page. Note also that there is a new, minor query on the FAC discussion. I suggest you address that last item quickly in order to avoid another Object appearing. Bob BScar23625 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, David. Bob BScar23625 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia cited by the High Court of England and Wales"

In the case "BBT Thermotechnology UK Ltd v Brainfire Group", you state that the domain name was transferred. However, the linked-to page states that while the arbitrator agreed that the registration had been abusive, he had not seen evidence that the complainant had rights to the name, and so he refused the complaint. – Smyth\^talk 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-03/Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court

In this article, you state:

Wikipedia has been mentioned in two other reported rulings in the Courts of England and Wales. The first was in BBT Thermotechnology UK Ltd v Brainfire Group [2006] DRS 3931 (12 January 2006), a disputed internet registration claim decided by an independent expert under the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service

I would point out the Nominet's dispute resolution isn't a court, but an arbitration system that doesn't carry the force of law (only contractual obligations). JulesH 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration, don't talk to me about arbitration ... (fx:mutters under breath for several minutes) David | Talk 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for putting the article together, it's always nice to have people helping produce the Signpost. --Michael Snow 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ward/Constituency of the London Borough of Hackney

Hi Steve

Yeah I have read most of the sandpit stuff but really wanted to set up and to have something relevant to work on setting this little area for my training ground. The wards and constituencies correspond to each other in LBH and I wasn't certain if a political or geographical stub was what I wanted to produce. As I have only included the political so far and currently linking to the relevant geographical descriptions this evening, I thought better to use constituency in the title.

Yours sincerely

Jed keenan 20:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve

I have just done a peer review and checked Bradford of all places to compare their style and Brownswood (Hackney Ward) City (Bradford Ward) looks good.

Yours sincerely,

Jed keenan 22:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of 66-0-4. If there's anything I can help you with now that I'm an admin, please let me know on my talk page. Again, thanks! Mango juice^talk 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my deletion of the info on List of Life Peerages page. I do not know how I did it, I didnt mean to! Thanks! --86.3.90.100 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

I'll make a reply tomorrow evening. -- Karl Meier 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thankyou for your support and helping me understand the rules here.

steve page

Apology

Dear Dave, I have looked at what you say and apologise wholeheartedly. I will desist further. I do very much respect the culture of wikipedia. With best wishes, Tim

PS

and I am sorry to call you Dave when it seems on further reading that it is David.

Thank you

Thank you for the edit for which I am flattered. It seems we overlapped in Cambridge and possibly in Westminster afterwards. Having looked at your profile, it also seems that there are a number of your fellow councillors who I know from my Tory days. Please pass on my best to Brian Connell and Justin Powell-Tuck if you happen to see them.

We have a council meeting next Wednesday - JPT stepped down in May so I don't see him, but Brian Connell sits for the ward next to mine so I imagine I will be bumping into him! Thanks. David | Talk 14:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Notional General Election results

A few days ago you told me that there are notional results for constituencies in 1979. Could you give me a link to it? --Jammydodger 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea

I was impressed with the historic constituency maps you added. Much more impressive than the text I managed to produce. --Gary J 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Template items in the main namespace

What is the reason for putting things like Independent National/meta/shortname in the main namespace? —Centrx→talk • 05:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because if you put them elsewhere it doesn't work. See Mossley (UK Parliament constituency). David | Talk 14:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Libya

Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews- possible sockpuppetry?

Although I initially did not think that Gibnews was engaging in sockpuppetry, me and user panchurret are having serious doubts now. Gibnews is beginning to show a more and more aggressive behaviour and launching accusations of "racism" (??) which are too similar to user: Gibraltarian to be ignored. You may have been right all along.

Could you please Please do a usercheck for Azmoc,Gibraltarian, bxlbaby and Gibnews. All possible sockpuppets of the same person (see RfC for Gibnews).

Since Gibnews has accused Panchurret and me of being the same user you can do the same for us:Panchurret and Burgas00, (to be fair). I dont know what the process is but I would really appreciate if you helped settle this issue once and for all.

I initially started the RfC in a conciliatory manner hoping Gibnews would somehow change his attitude. It seems he has now become more and more extreme. This is a non political issue, despite his constant efforts to picture this as a battle between Gibraltar and Spain.

Thanks alot for your help. --Burgas00 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasty footnotes change

Please provide some evidence before changing the Wikipedia:Footnotes guideline. We've actually been discussing the "ref after punctuation" issue. See in particular Kirill's response to your change.[1] --J. J. 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article creation.

Not anymore it isn't. See Special:Whatlinkshere/The weather in London; I've eliminated all uses of it as an example of a red link. Now it's just an example of an edit war, and these deletions interfere with all attempts to end that edit war. A page title that looks like a potential article subject does not make a good choice for an intentional permanent red link. Please see Wikipedia talk:Choosing intentional red links, and discuss there before deleting. _SeahenNeon Merlin 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hartleyshawcross.jpg

Hi Dbiv,

I notice that this photo has no source information. Can you please add the appropriate information?

Sincerely, Kjetil _r 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike Weaver (politician)

A friendly note to let you know that I deprodded the above article not because of his candidacy for the national legislature of the US, but because he is a member of the KY state legislature, thereby squeaking by WP:BIO. Thanks for bringing the article to my attention (I am a bit of an OCD prod patroller), however, and I'll see what I can do to make it a better stub. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Silver Badge Party

Thanks for your note. If I recall correctly (which I may not do, as it was some time ago), my sources were David Butler and Gareth Butler, British Political Facts for the second sentence, [2] and [3] for the third, and [4] for the final paragraph. In terms of how to fix it - I am quite happy to trust your judgement here, as I am aware of your wealth of knowledge on UK politics. Warofdreams talk 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello. I wonder if you would consider answering these two questions? Thank you.

Avalon 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:1625714_moore300.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1625714_moore300.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by checkuser

My reluctance to close the arbitration case is based on this edit which you apparently made. Fred Bauder 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny it. I was frustrated that the statement on the proposed decision was factually wrong and that despite my reminding everyone concerned of this fact several times nothing appeared to have been done. I have already logged out of Wikipedia on my home computer in preparation for an enforced departure, which is why it was made by an IP address - no real issue of concealment given that you don't even need checkuser to show that it was me.

Do I understand you to be saying that you have no intention of being in any way responsive on the article ban? Because quite frankly you are wasting your time debating anything admin related unless and until that is withdrawn. David | Talk 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article ban seems righteous. Fred Bauder 17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

This case has closed. You have been desysopped and banned from Peter Tatchell one year. See the full details at the decision page. Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dave.. what the hell are you doing? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dbiv, from what I've seen of you, I can tell you I think this situation sucks. I'm sorry to have reverted you, but please don't push it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but it has gone beyond that point by now. I will be posting a more complete statement on my user page when I have the time. However, for the moment, the situation is this: I reject the committee's findings and will continue to edit Peter Tatchell. To mark my rejection I will not edit any other page, save in connection with attempts to get the article ban removed, or Talk pages connected with editing of Peter Tatchell. I will not be disruptive: I will make good faith and sourced edits. David | Talk 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please abide by the ban on editing Peter Tatchell pending your appeal. As a person who has wielded the sysop bit you know better than to act like this. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing Peter Tatchell until such time as a decision is made in your favor. I wish you the best of luck in your appeal, and I'll leave you unblocked so that you can participate in it, and that a decision might be reached more expediently. Once again, stop shooting yourself in the foot. —freak(talk) 21:08, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony and (er..) Freak. I am not willing to abide by any purported ArbCom decision banning me from the article, but I am prepared to abide by a polite request such as the one you made not to edit the article for a short period. However, I will still not be contributing to any other article. In the meantime, you may wish to give consideration to whether the link to the Malawi tea-planter story in particular ought to be included in the article - it was one very notable contribution which Peter Tatchell made to investigative journalism and a direct reference to where to find the published piece is actually highly appropriate. David | Talk 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest raising the issue of the tea-planter story, and any others, on the article's talk page, as it appears you are only banned from the article itself. Furthermore I see no reason for you not to edit other articles; in fact it might help take your mind off this (likely frustrating) situation. Regards. —freak(talk) 21:36, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid the matter has long since gone beyond that stage. I declared nearly two months ago that such an article ban would be unacceptable in principle and would be incompatible with me continuing as an active Wikipedian. Thank you for your concern, but I am unable in all conscience to edit until the article ban is repudiated (not merely expired). Full explanation on user page when I have the time. David | Talk 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

David, do you accept the authority of the Arbitration Committee? I ask this because your statement that an article ban is "unacceptable in principle" seems to challenge that authority.

I'd like to see you continue to edit Wikipedia, making your many excellent contributions, and if your appeal is successful that will include edits to the Peter Tatchell article. However appearing to challenge the authority of the very committee which you're asking to reconsider its decision doesn't see to be an approach likely to be very productive, and personal attacks on arbitrators like this one seem almost guaranteed to antagonize the committee. Searching your conscience, are you quite sure that you're not simply setting yourself up for martyrdom?

I urge you to consider apologising to the committee for flouting the article ban, and telling them that you will accept their authority on this matter pending resolution of your appeal. In my view this would be a minimum for avoiding the risk of further sanctions. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I accept the authority of the Arbitration Committee? That's what Harold Wilson used to describe as a "theological" question, one which might be argued about until the cows come home without ever actually affecting the way anyone behaves. All that needs to be said at this stage is that the article ban is unacceptable to me in principle, and leave it at that. I have some comments which I would like to make about deficiencies in the Arbitration process which are quite separate from this case in particular but that is for another day. For better or worse, it is the procedure that Wikipedia has at the moment, and until changed it is the procedure everyone has to work through.

I will not be apologising to the committee. Nor do I expect them or their members to apologise to me for the very many unjustified attacks they have made upon me. In any case that edit you cite is no attack on Dmcdevit - it comments on his contribution. But so far as "avoiding the risk of further sanctions" goes, this is an empty threat: I cannot in conscience contribute so long as the article ban is there. Why should I therefore care about further sanctions? David | Talk 15:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we must all accept that the Arbitration Committee has the ultimate right to forbid us to edit any or all of Wikipedia if it thinks that is necessary. This does affect the way we act; for instance if you accepted that principle then you would not have edited the article after the Committee forbade you to do so. --Tony Sidaway 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that we must all accept that the ArbCom has the right to take any particular action. We may happily agree that it has the ability to do so, but to say it has the right is to implicitly declare that the committee can never make a mistake - which is not something that anyone could agree (not even the more thoughtful arbitrators). Indeed, it is implicit in Jimbo's statement when he set the whole thing up that it might go wrong.

One of the deficiencies of the Arbitration Committee is that it's too defensive of its rights to decide matters, and that has left it adopting bad solutions which have been proposed through the committee in preference to good solutions proposed outside it. David | Talk 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of your ban

You leave Wikipedia with little choice:

20:35, 27 August 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Dbiv with an expiry time of 1 week (Blatant, repeated and knowing defiance of article ban Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom)

--Tony Sidaway 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DavidBoothroyd

I have blocked your sockpuppet indefinitely because you are using it to evade a block. Regards, The Land 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove this notice. I have placed it here because you redirected your sockpuppet's talk page to here. Because of your repeated removals of this notice I have protected this talk page as a temporary measure. The Land 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now unblocked User:DavidBoothroyd and unprotected the talk page here. However, please don't use this as an opportunity to continue rowing with people. The Land 15:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. David | Talk 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I argued at ANI for allowing you to use User:DavidBoothroyd to defend the article on yourself as it would be extremely unfortunate if someone took advantage of your current situation to make inappropriate edits there. I trust you won't make a monkey out of me. Cheers. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

David, as further de-escalation I'll now unblock your other user for the purpose of edits from which you are not banned. We (and by "we" I mean editors of good will who value your contributions) very much want to keep you as an editor. We very much want to avoid having to take sides between you and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's bans. There may have been injustice in that ban but your way of going about appealing it has not been helpful. But, you are still highly respected by me and I want to show that by trusting you. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell again

David, please don't edit that article again. You can edit the talk page but not the article. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No. David | Talk 12:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, yes. You know exactly why. Other users have shown plenty of willingness to incorporate your constructive comments into the article. None of us here wants to see you blocked for breaking the ArbCom decision, which is what will happen if you edit the article. And if you keep on editing it you will end up blocked for a long time. The Land 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Are you, in fact, that clueless? Or do you assume gross stupidity on the part of anyone but yourself? --Calton | Talk 15:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia. I'm adding sources to articles. If you remove them, then you are disrupting Wikipedia. David | Talk 15:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Clueless it is, then,as I'm not disrupting a damned thing. Nobody has explained to you these things called "Talk pages", then? If the things you want added are, in fact, worth adding, put them on the article's Talk page and someone will add them. I realize that this requires you to actually work with people instead of issuing them orders, but if you buck up, I'm sure you can do it. --Calton | Talk 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ordering anybody about. I'm just contributing to the article, improving it by adding sources for the things it says. I'm perfectly prepared to work with people except if they personally attack me like you have done. If you remove the sources, you are disrupting Wikipedia. The edits stand or fall on what they say, not who makes them. David | Talk 15:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ordering anybody about. Uh, right, of course.

NB I do not have a "night-school law degree" or any other kind of law degree, and I don't know why Calton should think I have. Have you become THAT detached from reality? YOU ADDED THAT COMMENT YOURSELF. Saying that you don't understand a comment YOU WROTE YOURSELF is either a breathtaking lie or a sign of some sort of psychotic break, and I don't know which would be worse. It pretty much demonstrates, however, that any thing you write from here on out is per se unreliable. --Calton | Talk 15:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize for attributing it to you. Your basic hypocrisy in attempting to exercise control over other people's Talk Page remain, however. --Calton | Talk 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a damned liar. David | Talk 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the references as the article is better for them. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

For some reason you've removed all vowels from this message. No doubt you have some reason for doing so but I'm afraid it's got me totally confused right now.

It appears to be a common state with you, based on your other comments in the same edit. As to your vowels, why should you care what's on my talk page? After all, you're dishonest enough to expunge MY words from your Talk Page completely, so you've no call to ask about what I do on mine. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't

David, this type of edit isn't going to help your cause. Can you provide a link to the appeal of your ArbCom ban from Peter Tatchell? (→Netscott) 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, the diff of the appeal's rejection has been provided. If you have comments to add here let us know. (→Netscott) 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Only to add this: Since the axe of the Arbitration finding fell I have continued to edit the article, and no-one has actually criticised the substance of my edits. They have all been accepted in the article. I am not going to put edits through a 'filter' of the talk page; such a suggestion is an insult given that I wrote most of what's there in the article at the moment, and it's also pointless given the fact that no-one outside the Arbitration Committee seems to believe I will actually be disruptive. (The Arbitration Committee itself has refused to offer any true explanation of the article ban, however). Even if they do believe that I might be disruptive, then there are mechanisms in place which allow control - article-specific probation, or even general probation - which I would be quite willing to accept. If such a change was made then I would consider the article ban repudiated and return to contributing to Wikipedia generally. David | Talk 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A reply to Calton

On WP:AN/I, Calton writes:

If someone not under ArbCom wants to add good content, nothing's stopping them. If Dbiv wants to add good content, nothing's stopping him from bringing it to the Talk page, as he's explicitly allowed. That he refuses that simple step -- one which requires him to actually work with others, which is at the heart of the ArbCom case -- says that this isn't about content, it's about Dbiv's attempt at control.

This is a statement that could only be written by someone who has not read (or not understood) the explanation I posted on my user page. Calton is late to this party and I suspect has no knowledge of the issues that lie behind the original editing disputes; he certainly has no knowledge of the background to the Arbitration case, a great deal of which took place in private discussions.

It is absolutely nothing to do with "attempt at control" nor with an inability to work with others. If that were the case, how could it be that long before the Arbitration case was closed, I had come to a full agreement with Irishpunktom who was the only person with whom I had problems on editing the article? As a point of fact I am very sorry that Irishpunktom was also banned from the article and I still think this was unwarranted. I am hoping to revise the article to take account of the valid point he made about it not discussing the objections some people have to Peter Tatchell's self-description of 'human rights campaigner'.

The reason I will not submit edits for approval to the talk page is everything to do with the unjustified ArbCom decision and the fact that an article ban can only be interpreted as judging my collective contributions to the article as harmful. Not merely do I not believe that is true, it is so far from being true that anyone who claims it as being true has either got a screw loose or is taking a deliberately contrary position. David | Talk 11:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your appeal

I saw your notice to Mackensen because I have his talk page watched. I agree with most of your argument and thought all along that probation and revert parole would have been sufficient to put some teeth into your agreement with IPT. However, I think it is a mistake to personalize your appeal against Dmcdevit, especially bringing up the AaronS case. You may wish to consider revising it to be more about your behavior, your settlement, and your willingness to accept 1RR parole to enforce the settlement, for example. Just some friendly tactical advice. Thatcher131 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Maraba Coffee

Hello! As you're a Wikipedian interested in African topics, I'm writing to notify you that the Maraba Coffee article is now a 'Featured Article Candidate'. Please feel free to evaluate the article and write your support or opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks — SteveRwanda 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Feeling brave?

I don't suppose you are an admin are you? never mind you can still have a comment if you feel so inclined. [5] Giano 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sod! Giano 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Yes, 5 support votes makes the motion pass. I will close the motion and move your request for appeal 24 hours after the 5th support vote. That is after 19:53, 22 September 2006. (UTC).[6] --FloNight 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have left you banned from that one article and not on probation. But I guess you went ahead and edited the article you were banned from, so perhaps I would want to block you for that. Anyway, the motion passed, so go forth and be. Fred Bauder 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)