User talk:Morven/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1 2

Question regarding Image sources[edit]

A question. I have over 1,200 pieces of automobile literature in our basement that I use for illustrating articles on Wikipedia. I have been adding those images as "promotional", however I have just been informed by User:Pd THOR that tagging the image is not enough, that I have to state that it came from which source. Is this true? He seems to be on quite a streak in going through images and retagging them. He also seems quite inflexible as to his rationale.

If it needs to be done, then I will do it, but this is the first I've heard of it. Stude62 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to state the source, yes. For an ad, it should be sufficient to cite the company and year, although it would be better to state what magazine if possible. Bear in mind that you cannot just use any promotional image to describe anything; you can generally use a company's own ad to illustrate the product in question, if there is no other image yet available. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. This seems logical enough and this is what I have been doing. Reading his talk page it appears that he's been stepping on toes of late. Oh well, every one needs a hobby. Stude62 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow sock puppuet[edit]

It's not random. Several days ago, I interrupted his sock puppet Pro123tester (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). When I found him, he was adding innapropriate information to Jefferson Poland. My first report only got him an hour block, per WP:BITE thinking. I wasn't satisfied. Something about his pattern of editing seemed too deliberate. He also left a talk message about a member of the Wales family. I searched through Pro123tester's contributions until I figured out it was Amorrow. This is my reward. : ) I just found and reverted some more of Pro123tester's edits about the Wales family. What a nuisance! FloNight talk 21:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In case you're still wondering...[edit]

They closed down the Berkeley Pit just for the sake of closing it. There was no more need for it, so they packed up and left. -- 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Edsel Corsair 1959.jpg[edit]

nominated but too small

Hello Morven, [[User: nominated your picture Edsel Corsair 1959.jpg as a featured picture candidate. Unfortunately it is about to be shot down on grounds of beeing too small. Do you still have a full-resolution version and would be willing to upload? --Dschwen 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Just to let you know, your name has come up at User talk:Vhjh. Vhjh has been convicted of being a sockpuppet of Robsteadman and is challenging this conviction. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 09:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration vote requested[edit]

Hey, I wonder if you could vote over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Proposed decision soon. Every other current arbitrator has voted, and your vote is still important as there are some ties that could be decided by it. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Acharya S and my arbitratoion.[edit]

2 qurasitons.

1: How long is the barrign me from editign her page for?

2:Can I challenge the verdict?

3: You do relaise you have just been played, right? I didnt threaten to post Liable, I threatened to post an artilce I had written. I also didnt post the material several times, and had not tlake don it for months.

James list of evidence was itsslf ridiculous as most of it was not relaly aimed at the point of arbitration, and one can just as eaisly come up wiht a long list of evidence agsint him.

The bit abotu her son, and how low I was to brign him into it, is also ridiculous. I posted that her son had been kidnapped, and returned to her. This was after she posted a news article on it on her own website. ( And is thus not liable and was verifiable.)

Look at the below. Tell me htis is not Bias, and not vandalism.

How am I disruptive in revertign it?

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."

The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.)

Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)

It is entrley promotional.

The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.

It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.

It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.

The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen solely for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.

These are the problems.

As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.

Image Use[edit]

Whatever anyone does, don't let this guy see you use an actual, high-quality, professional promo photo. He'll delete it and replace it with the amateur "taken-by-a-12-year-old" photo that you edited out. Then, he'll leave nasty notes on your Talk board saying "Don't replace free images with unfree ones just because they're 'better' or 'more professional." Hello!? Sorry for wanting to improve your all-powerful website! Have fun with your sh*tty photos. I won't be contributing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBowen574 (talkcontribs)


There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 18:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Arb Case Mistake[edit]

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [1].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

V8 engine[edit]

I saw your note on the V8 engine talk page. Were you aware it is back there? Rich Farmbrough 20:52 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Yes; I simply reconsidered giving a damn about that one anymore. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Probably very wise. Rich Farmbrough 10:58 7 May 2006 (UTC).

regarding "civility"[edit]

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.


Not licensed, no rights released

User Jayjg's revert war at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel[edit]

This is not a formal complaint, but I would like to informally draw the attention of some members of the arbitration committee to the behavior of user Jayjg, an arbitration committee member at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and its talk page. There is a dispute about the inclusion of a description of a translating group. Jayjg has removed the description I added on (10:12, May 8, 2006), (10:19, May 7, 2006), (23:19, May 5, 2006) Jayjg and other times. While the article is not heavily edited, there is certainly no consensus that the description should be removed, nor has Jayjg supported his reasoning for removing it after being challenged to do so by myself and another editor. I think that as a member of the arbitration committee Jayjg should be held to an even higher standard than at-large editors. TopRank 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Morven! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 08:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png

Your page is sadly congratulations free, and I hope to remedy that :). Your work in arbitration is greatly appreciated, and I just wanted to make sure that you're aware that many users like myself are grateful that you're willing to take the task on. Thanks for all of the hard work, and let me know if I can ever help. Yours in gratitude, Snoutwood (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I have taken note of your comments on the Gregory Lauder-Frost Talk Page. Thank you. Please may I apologise if I have overstepped the mark (you called it "partisan") in his defence. I felt that I was constantly being ignored, and I suppose that provoked me into a more aggressive spirit. I shall try not to let it happen again. Sussexman 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Thnks for your message on my Talk Page. I have always been very interested in politics (as far as my employment will permit) and other subjects also. I knew Gregory Lauder-Frost years ago when he was a real live wire and have many of the articles he wrote. They are good source material for Wikipedia but I see now they're deleted. I have used some of them to set up a few pages but I see now that at least one person has decided that by doing so I must be GLF. What with such lunatic allegations and the ceasless attacks on GLF et al and proposals to rubbish him on the Internet almost 15 years after his difficulties, altogether I am completely disillusioned with Wikipedia. I have limited time because of my workload to come to his defence and to argue constantly with his few, but very determined opponents. I might steer off political subjects on Wikipedia or even leave altogether. Good luck with your chosen subjects. Sussexman 21:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I thought I ought to drop a brief note to thank you once more for your reply to my listserv comment, and I found here only further evidence of my horrific pedantry; it was I who edited your Morwen disambiguation header, and surely my locution is nothing if not ugly. In any case, having happened upon the GLF page from AN/I, I think you're being eminently sensible there, both in clarifying that Wikipedia does not imperil itself legally by printing the fact of GLF's having had run-ins with the criminal justice system and in observing that, regardless of whether they meet the letter of WP:NLT, the comments of Sussexman, et al. are designed to coerce the removal by editors of information for reasons other than those we'd typically consider (at the very least, they have the effect of conditioning a legal action on editing), which is precisely the sort of behavior NLT exists to limit. You seem also to have a firm grasp on when we ought to include information about a subject's legal troubles where such troubles are only tangentially related to his/her notability; I imagine that WP:BLP, reflecting, as I think it does, the views of most editors, neither goes toward the propositions of SlimV and Fred Bauder that we ought to be concerned in our editing about whether we may have a direct and lasting effect on a person's life and on the lives of his family members nor toward my proposition that those concerns are wholly unencyclopedic (and that inclusion is merited because we often include otherwise non-notable information in articles apropos of notable subjects; once the notability bar is reached for a subject, we're more likely to consider that which we'd otherwise term cruft as providing nuance and context to a notable subject), and you appear well to grasp that (wow, my making such a pronouncement seems to evidence just a smidgen of arrogance; thank G/god I'm otherwise so modest). So, once more, a three-sentence note turns into a page-long diatribe, the point of which is altogether unclear.  :) Joe 05:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A message[edit]

Let's forget any disagreements we had in the past. --Sunholm(talk) 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunholm unblock request[edit]

Hi Morven, I have received an unblock request for the IP from this user via email.

Please unblock - I can't edit!
It's in the block log.''

I had undone an autoblock yesterday after a claim of collateral blocking damage following my block of User:Flexible-Crab. This seemed like a fair call as Sunholm had been evidently logging many vandalism reports at WP:AIV. Looking at the history a bit closer and things on this page, it looks a bit suspicious. I don't know the history in detail so I will take no action, but you may wish to visit the user's page where he has posted an {{unblock}} notice. Is this a user who vandalises then reports it himself to the noticeboard? Very odd. Regards. 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Locomotive Cyclopedia[edit]

I've noticed you've loaded images from 1922 Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice. I need a nice side view of a locomotive with Baker valve gear for that page, if you have such available. Thanks in advance. Mangoe 19:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a few pictures there - both photographs and drawings. I should be able to get an image for you perhaps tonight, if I have time. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick[edit]

I particularly hate when people rush things but there is an issue arbitration commitee must look at urgently.

Moby Dick has ceased editing as of 7 june (Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick) and logs making checkuser posible will expire in about a week. These logs must be kept at least until the case closes. The fate of the logs will be depending on the outcome of the case.

I am just concerned about the posibility of moby dick returning with a new sock continuing the behaviour I complain about.

Cat chi? 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note.[edit]

The ban specifically list that I can use talk. Thus it allow me to participate (this is what wikipedia is all about)

I did not even tried that I tried to corrcet an error by using the editor talk page. (basic comunication)

May I suggest you familiar yourself with WP:Civility

also note that what user did was to mis caption an image - when he was made aware of his action he choose to use the argument that I am banned to avoif the need to be truthfull in his caption. (this is done for political POV pushing) Zeq 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

PS the ban itself was done without good cause but that is something I chose not to apeal to arbCom yet. hoping to resolve it diffrently. Zeq 19:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed my comment; I misremembered the conditions of that particular article ban under your probation. My apologies. However, I still recommend rejection of the RFAR. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind. Zeq 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added few more lines to the request. Is there in wkipedia any mechanism short of arbCom rulling that makes a user who refuse to comunicate to engage in comunication (which is the most basic form and the basis for any WP:Resolving_disputes ? If there is no other mechanism I must say that your vote is not clear to me at all. If there is please let me know what it is as this request for arbitration is about behaviour that prevents basic comunication. Tnx. Zeq 19:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hunger Project RfAr[edit]

Hi Morven, regarding your rejection of the case, I would like to explain and try to convince you to change your mind. I am acting as an advocate for Jcoonrod and have been advising him on how to resolve this issue. User:Danny stepped in to edit the article and Smeelgova swiftly reverted his changes. These however have since been restored after she learnt a bit more about who Danny was. What is particularly interesting to note is User:BradPatrick's opinion on this matter:

I'm not the best person to respond to this given my role, but I can tell you that the pattern of editing that you have engaged in over the past month, with your selection of articles, POV (in my estimation) and tendency to edit in only a very narrow area warrant very careful evaluation of exactly what it is you are doing. I just took a look at the page you put together on Harry Margolis and your choice of supposedly "relevant" legal items, and I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe. I believe you are going to be called out for your viewpoint. You might want to ask yourself if, as the userpage of User:Essjay asks, with every click of the "save page" button you are making Wikipedia a better place. Are you?--BradPatrick 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly more than simply an issue of content. The RfAr may have been better entitiled as to do with User:Smeelgova, and the Hunger Project page is the main focus of her editing. I would suggest therefore that this case encompases not just a content issue, but an issue of NPOV, source citation and creating what amount to attack pages (e.g. Ellis Duell, and Joan Holmes), as she has added demostably false information, and refused to accept arguments or evidence which proves this. Another issue that this arbitration deals with is Smeelgova's ability to accept dispute resolution. In the whole editing of the article it has been the side of Jcoonrod that has been having to compromise in order to try and appease Smeelgova. The situation on the Hunger Project page is largely to do with content but there are a number of other issues which are relevant, as mentioned above. The issue is not simply about the page but about User:Smeelgova and her editing behaviour. Her use of edit summaries could be questioned as well, this for example. One other point to raise is the manner in which she marks virtually all her edits as minor, when in fact they are often reversions of contentious material, or siginificant contributions, so this is again another facotr to look at in her editing behaviour.

I hope the reasoning above has persuaded you to let this case proceed to evidence phase, and I think you will now agree this case revolves around more than simply content. --Wisden17 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've read into the dispute a bit further and now agree with you that there appear to be sufficient user conduct issues to investigate to justify an arbitration case. I am simply loath to take arbcom cases where there is little to deal with but content matters outside our remit. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, no I pefectly understand that, and you would be having cases "until the cows [came] home" if you did just accept where content was the only issue. I wouldn't have advised arbitration if I did not feel that it met the conditions, or warranted it. Would you advise in future cases of this nature to title them with the user in question? We kept the Hunger Project as the title as it was the title for the RfM, and so wanted to maintain consistency through the Dispute resolution process. --Wisden17 19:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously, I would prefer to proceed with a content-based discussion of the material in question on The Hunger Project page, through the already established Mediation Process. I have attempted to cite referenced sources in blockquote format for material contributed to above mentioned articles, in order to present referenced information as opposed to a particular POV. As to marking certain edits as minor, I apologize if this was misconstrued, I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and did think at the time that these edits were minor in nature, but I will cease this activity. I had indeed reverted the edits made after Danny had changed the page and deleted many of my blockquoted cited references, as a show of good faith that I wish to engage in and proceed with the Mediation Process, as I would imagine so do the other users who accepted the Mediation Process on the article The Hunger Project. If certain users had had a problem with any of my activities on Wikipedia, as opposed to a conversation about content on a particular article, I would have preferred to engage said users directly about my alleged actions, before an arbitration. As of yet, Jcoonrod and I had had a relatively civil discussion on the discussion boards, with no warning of a need for arbitration. Again, I apologize if I have previously acted inappropriately (separate from the pending Mediation Process content based debate), but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and had not been informed of any inappropriate behavior separate from the issue of the content of the article.Smeelgova 03:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Basically, I am relatively new and unfamiliar with the various procedures utilized by Wikipedia. I wish to be truthful and straightforward and admit that my edits most likely contain POV as do those of most editors, as it is difficult to screen out POV from one's edits. I would also like to state that as such, it seems likely thatJcoonrod's edits also contain POV, as this is virtually inevitable. I believe we have both been trying to push our own POV on the article. As to the content, I have tried to cite sources in blockquote format. As to my actions, I truly will have to plead ignorance, if a supposed pattern is found to my edits, I can not deny this and only state that similar patterns probably exist for Jcoonrod's edits as well as for most of the other editors to the article historically. This can be seen by a simple perusal of edits and discussions between other users and Jcoonrod prior to my initial edit to the article. I will proceed with arbitration, but would much rather focus our debate on the content and citability of sources, rather than shift the entire focus to a personal debate on actions by a single individual. Please let me know what other actions would be appropriate by me in your view at this point, and thank you for your time.Smeelgova 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Hullo Morven. Would you be so kind as to provide a hyperlink or something of that sort for this picture? I don't pretend to know Wikipedia's copyright policies inside and out, but I don't think saying it's from the Navy is satisfactory. Thanks for your cooperation, and keep up the uploads. Ingoolemo talk 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's WAY too long ago for me to remember, but I'll search for it. Back then we weren't being all that fussy about providing links or whatever - we assumed good faith more than we can do now, alas. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Beach volleyball-Huntington Beach-California 1.jpg[edit]

This photo has been put up for deletion on WikiCommons. Apparently it's from a Flickr account and it is possibly _your_ Flickr account. If you have time, please take a look at commons:Commons:Deletion requests and leave an explanation. Regards, Thuresson 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New IP address[edit]

Well, I've changed my IP now - it's instead, so there shouldn't be any more problems. I'm on dynamic IPs, so that probably explains why my IPs are shared with vandals/sockpuppets, similar to AOL.

I don't want to get into disputes with you,I just want to be a good editor.

Would you be able to help me get the Pontiac 6000 and Chevrolet Celebrity articles to featured status?? I'd appreciate the help. --Sunholm(talk) 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad, and I hope we've seen the last of those problems. I'd be happy to help you out with those articles when and as I have the time.
Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost[edit]

While I think you're right to some extent, I also think that it's been a tendency of Wikipedians, in cases where someone has made an ass of themselves in dealing with the article, to lose neutrality in the process. We've seen it with Sollog, with Daniel Brandt, with Jeff Merkey, and a number of others. All of these articles have been fairly scrupulously referenced, but have had (IMO) major neutrality problems. This was seen best, I think, in the Merkey situation - where the result of a WP:OFFICE rewrite saw an actual neutral article evolve (out of a similar original article to this one).

The Lauder-Frost article falls into the same trap. It gives very little information about his life outside of his political controversies. The very first sentence of the body labels him an extremist, and the whole "political activities" section comes at the topic not from the angle of "what has he done and what does he believe?" but "what has he done that is controversial?" When you come at someone's career from that perspective, it is bound to end up as a collection of all the very worst moments of the subject of the article.

I'm not for a second defending Lauder-Frost's beliefs, but I really do think we can do better than this. Rebecca 10:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump[edit]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


A) My ban from those articles only actually lasted for two months, not a year. B) I have never and will never attempt to assert ownership of an article. This is an insulting charge, made all the more so by the repetition of it for so long in the face of all evidence. C) I honestly don't know what more you want me to say by way of justification than "I think it's notable". Don't you realize that the counter-argument used is simply "I think it's non-notable"? I have tried to defuse these issues by arguing for strict verification of all information, which typically results in reductions in the extent of the content without unfairly eliminating any perfectly good information. Everyking 03:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ray Hanina[edit]

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [2]especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Is there any way to remove an Arbitrator from a case in which he has a conflict of interest if he refuses to recuse himself? Homey 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no official way to do this. In general, arbitrators are considered competent to decide for themselves if they are able to be fair in a particular case - I suspect this is another example of arbcom being set up (for good or ill) like the US supreme court, where the justices are allowed to decide for themselves whether they should recuse, and there is no avenue for appeal.
If you believe strongly that a particular arbitrator is incapable of being fair in a certain case, I'd imagine that you could appeal to the arbcom as a whole. While the arbitration committee cannot force one of its own to recuse, I don't think, they are more able to apply persuasion. If that was unsuccessful, an appeal to Jimbo is probably your only route, since under the current setup, Jimbo is able to over-ride the arbcom if he sees fit.
Neither is likely to succeed without a very persuasive argument, and preferably a good list of other well-regarded users willing to sign the petition, I think. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom and Ericsaindon2[edit]

Is your reason for accepting the Arbitration against me because you live in Anaheim, or why are you doing this? Of anyone, you should know that Anaheim Hills, California does not like to be affiliated with Anaheim, which is why we have wanted to detach for decades, and Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California does not properly represent the hills area, especially in an encyclopedia where accuracy, and common usage are key points. I was sure that a fellow Anaheim resident (maybe I am only limited to rallying with Anaheim Hills residents after that vote) would see my point in wanting the sensitive naming issue to be left at what the residents here like to be called. But, I guess you will see the whole picture in Arbcom. Will you please consider withdrawing your vote, and maybe read the comments on the Anaheim Hills talk page, because the way it is outlined on the Arbcom page gives the matter no proper representation. --Ericsaindon2 08:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is only concerned with user behaviour - we are not generally deciding the content issue itself, but rather how all parties have conducted themselves and whether Wikipedia policy is being followed. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom and JzG[edit]

Please review your rejection of the case. I do not care if an arbcom case or another way to solve the dispute is chosen, but protecting articles and blocking users when in a conflict of interest over a content dispute is abuse of admin power. All allegations are sourced, claiming that they are libelous is absurd, and this view is supported by Phil Sandifer, too. [3] [4] Furthermore, claiming the French would treat someone differently for his nationality is incivil, and so are many more comments by JzG, the latest at my talk page: [5]. Socafan 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that JzG went on to violate standards for biographies of living people at the articles of two critics of Armstrong: [6] [7], in the latter case even falsifying the name and removing a category. Socafan 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My advice to you is to look to your own writing and your own standards, rather than this, which does you no favors at all. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but, as you should know as an arbitrator, this is not helpful at all. There are specific complaints, and the dispute goes on, please help resolving it. Socafan 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There are specific complaints including both sides. I'd recommend working WITH JzG, who's proven himself an able contributor, rather than trying to push complaints about him when you don't look that good either. I do think he was a bit uncivil with you and should not have blocked you or protected the article himself; I don't think that's sufficient for an arbcom case right now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not have taken it to ArbCom had I seen any chance to work with him. He just goes on with what I see as POV-pushing, accusing me of the same. No progress. What now? Socafan 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I was accused of being the sockpuppet of [user:Ericsaindon2], and have been blocked because of these allegations, and my talk page was covered with speculation that I was his sockpuppet. There is a complete lack of evidence for this, yet my talk page continues to be vandalized. Can you do a check user on me and user:Ericsaindon2 so that I can clear my name, because I am innocent, and I am being subjected to the punishments for something that is purely speculation, and has no found proof. If it comes back negative (which it will) I request that 1. The vandalism be removed from my talk page for this speculated allegation 2.I become unblocked for I was blocked for being a sock, yet there is no proof from the blocker, and when I contact the initiating blocker, they refuse to give me any proof to why I was blocked. Please make it quick, for I would like to get on with my editing, and be cleared of the false and malicious allegations. Thanks. --Mr.Executive 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, I am tired of being blocked for something I am innocent of. Thanks a bunch. -- 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration work[edit]

Hi Matt, the last arbitration case that you participated in beyond the main RFAr page was Locke Cole, on May 15. Having inactive arbitrators marked as active greatly slow down the process, because it means the other voters have to overcome that, with a higher proportion than should be necessary voting. Could you either move yourself to inactive status so that we can mark that on all current cases, or get more involved in current cases? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arb case:Kehrli[edit]

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Further assistance required[edit]

Gene Nygaard has carried on making page moves today, and declared his intent to carry on in the face of universal opposition on his talk page. I am thoroughly fed-up - have you got any suggestions for the next step? There has already been quite a lot of outside comment already (albeit one-sided, but I think that reflects opinion), so I'm not sure an RfC is the way forward - and given Gene's industy and the speed of RfC that could leave a big clean-up job. I know he is acting in good faith, but I'm not sure what else can be done. Aquilina 18:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Things that Moo[edit]

Thank you for protecting the NOR page. That was just getting a bit out of hand when I see 20 edits in one day (or something). Wjhonson 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision[edit]

New items have been added to the proposed decision portion of the case regarding the merged user, Coolcaesar. Please vote on those topics. Ericsaindon2 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems that Ericsaindon2 here added his own stuff to the proposed decision page of his ArbCom case. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] I have reverted it [13], iirc, only you and other ArbCom members should only add stuff to those type of pages, not a party in the case itself. I will leave it up to you whatever consequence, if any, should be given to him. Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration and help[edit]

(a) I have been accused of "sockpuppetry". This is totally unjust. I am not the same as any ot the Wikipedia-editors to whom I have been linked. I seek an arbiter who will listen to reason and logic. Contributors named Bioinformaticist, M&M Peace (i think), Philly Student...they are not I, at all --I do not know who they are, I vow as if in court! (b) Why are articles (bios of living people) on Marion Cohen, Roberta Wenocur, Elaine Zanutto, Linda Zhao, and other female mathematicians being held to standards different from male mathematicians like Herbert Wilf, Dennis DeTurck, &c .? (c) What is the problem with the corp, Daniel H. Wagner Associates? (d) All right, maybe articles need improvement, but deletion? and some with prompt deletion? (e) Wikipedia should be fun, not so contentious.

Please help. I want to be nice, but it is difficult when being unjustly accused and bulliied.

I hope you are understanding, and believe me. I am not lying. This is the truth.

MathStatWoman 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ericsaindon2[edit]

Hi. I was wondering why no arbitrators have added the information from the workshop to the proposed decision about Coolcaesar. I know that we are two different people, but you said that you would consider what he has done in making this decision (since he did initiate the whole thing). Yet, only the stuff presented against me is open for voting. I think you need to add the other stuff that pertains to Coolcaesar that was left out. Plus, I apologize, and have been very productive the past few weeks. Since my ban ended, I have not engaged in edit warring, and have been constructine in my edits. Please reconsider your votes, for I know I did do all that stuff, and I am truely sorry, but know that I have changed from doing that, and I do not get into personal conflicts with others, edit wars, etc. Thank you. Ericsaindon2 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bint Jbeil[edit]

I know I may have skirted process, but bear with me, here's why:

The article is very controversial. As an impartial observer, I was asked to intervene in a 3RR dispute on this page in ealry August. I eventually blocked both an IP address and a registered user for 3RR violations. Seeing that the article was likely to continue to be controversial, I watchlisted it. I did not add content, I am not writing this article. I don't care at all about the subject. I do care that it is subject to frequent edit wars and 3RR violations, and I thought it would be better if I watchlisted the article and took care of needed administrative actions as they popped up, rather than clog our admin noticeboards. Also, having read, understood, and watched the article, I knew what was going on much more clearly than any admin who would stumble across a request on a noticeboard. I have reverted a few changes in the past month, but in just the past week, a revert war over sources has sprung up. I satyed out for a while, and then decided that it had to be stopped. I protected the article, and even though it may have been out of process, I don't see any evidence that the revert war would stop if protection were lifted. Therefore, I think the protection should stand. If the community thinks otherwise though, I will of course recuse myself from further activity on this article and unprotect. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspected as much; however, if you've previously reverted, it's good form to ask someone else to do the protection; it looks better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems you have been taken in by RyanG's claim of 'I am not writing this article. I don't care at all about the subject'. I thought you might be interested in knowing that as of Sept 3 the mask has come off, and he now openly declares 'I am no longer a disinterested editor, nor will I claim to be in the future.' Quite a turnaround in just 2 days. Keep this in mind the next time you see an abusive admin feigning disinterest. Isarig 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I note he also says at the same time that he will no longer use admin privileges on that article, since he now feels personally involved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in knowing that after saying he will no longer use admin privileges on that article, today he unprotected the page (which had been protected for about a week) made a series of edits, then protected the page again. So much for relying on what a rogue admin like him says. I've filed a new WP:ANI about this behvaiour, if you'd care to take action. Isarig 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting WP:NOR?[edit]

Hi Morven.

I've just been dipping into the debate over at Wikipedia talk:No original research, and there seems to be come consensus for an edit which had been controversial, it seems. After more than a week of protection, I think it's safe to open the door again and see whether we can work it out peacefully this time. Before unprotecting, I'm checking with you, the protecting admin, to see whether you have any objection to my lifting the protection. Please let me know. Cheers, GTBacchus(talk) 01:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

lens mounts list[edit]

Hey Morven,

Good job on the table. I corrected most of the movie mounts, as their locking type was wrong. I was also thinking that maybe it would be a useful characteristic to have a column for the mount diameter (since that also should be a standard fixed width) as well as perhaps a description of the mount flanges, especially in the case of breech-lock design mounts. Anyway, just some suggestions! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not all that knowledgable on movie mounts, and the descriptions were often confusinig as to whether they were breech or bayonet mounts - they mention flanges, but not obviously how they work ;) Is the diameter you are talking about the inside throat diameter, that being the normally described value?
If you can think of a way to quickly describe the flanges, that'd be good; I'm just wary of getting into too much detail instead of simply linking to the article about the mount. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Could I ask you to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BADMINton? I'm not familiar with the IP ranges in question. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking into it, Morven -- Samir धर्म 01:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming Sam and Morven[edit]

Hi, Morven. I think the arbcom may be de facto encouraging the user's delusions of grandeur by not finishing voting on this motion in a prior case a bit sharpish. It really needs to take effect. I believe the user will ignore all arbitrator admonishments until there's an actual decision. (And beyond, but then at least she can be blocked for it.) Do you feel like taking a look at it? I honestly don't think you'd find it a time-consuming kind of thing to make up your mind about. Say 30-40 seconds from start to finish. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Wikiproject Cameras[edit]

May I suggest a wikiproject photography? It would serve as a nice counterpart to WikiProject Filmmaking, and would encompass cameras as well. Also, unrelated, see what macensen said 1-2 discussions up. Kevin_b_er 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography is already taken; that project is to do with getting better photographs for Wikipedia articles, rather than about documenting photography in Wikipedia. Suggestions for a good name are welcome.
I can't get any decent info for that particular CheckUser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This has sparked my interest in any case. Its currently inactive, there's nothing against a wikiproject reforming. The persuit of photographs for articles could be considered a task force. Yes it could be a great challenge, but considering each of the people who are considered photographers making stuff for wikipedia are also very likely interested in photography and cameras in general, this could give it new life. The newly formed WikiProject Council may be able to help too with reorganization. Kevin_b_er 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


After reding your comment here [14] I was wondering where in my commentery you feel I am making a "personality" issue out of my perfectly valid concerns regarding the issue of recused persons making unsolicited commentary on pending or active arbitrations? In so far as your answer to my query does nothing to allay my growing suspicion that certain of the arbitrators are going to give preferential treatment to those whom they may have formed some type of repoire with over someone who they may not have the same level of repoire. In my opinion, such commentary as you have made concerning this issue cheapens and diminishes the respectability of the ArbCom. So please point out the places where I am making "personality" an issue. I am curious to see where you have made that inference. Hamster Sandwich 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - I meant that comment to address the whole issue, and all concerned, rather than you personally. To put it more frankly, I feel that dislike of Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin among certain groups of editors seems to automatically cause mistrust whenever they are in question.
My perception is that we should not be making overall arbitration policy when what is really going on is that people are unhappy about SPECIFIC PEOPLE perhaps having influence over the arbitration process.
Currently we have a system in which anyone is allowed to communicate - in private or in public - with the sitting arbitrators on any case. If we are to move away from that, I don't think it should single out individuals or groups. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My feeling is that there must be some language that speaks to the issue of recused parties making further comment on the case unless named specifically to the dispute. Then of course, recusal is automatic. But even that point should be outlined. So far, I have only a half formed preamble to such a section drafted. The meat and potatos is a matter for Wikipedians at large to finalize. Such a thing can be expected to be mutable until something fair and equitable can be solidified.
ArbCom and its ancillary members must retain detachment and if this means curtailing certain "lines of communication" that may be already well established, then my suggestion for all arbitrators is to hold themselves distant from "off-wiki" communication for the duration of their terms. The committee must be beyond reproach. We are supposed to trust your decisions. Proper enforcement of your decisions depends on it. Hamster Sandwich 02:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Morven, the fact that anyone might contact ArbCom is very different from "an established, private channel unknown and unaccountable to others." It's true that the individuals in these cases are lightning rods, and I won't point out here that that was a concern that I raised way back when (and I was told, essentially, "get diffs or get lost" and was told explicitly, by a clerk, "losers whine!" and that was by a person whose name hasn't been mentioned in all this). The question is whether these persons serve ArbCom or the site. To the degree that they serve AC, the personal likes and dislikes of the AC members are in play. To the degree that they serve the site, the site's input is necessary. To the degree that what they have to say must be secret, then it may be, but no further than that. If it is ever prejudicial, ever summary, ever advocating with anything but sensitive information, then the fact that the site is being affected (not to mention the other disputant) should mean that it cannot be invisible. I've been waiting for energy and Dramamine before making my statement on the ill-named portmanteau RFAR entitled "Giano et al," but the gist of my presentation will be that personalities have dominated over community in the operation of the beaurocrats in the Carnildo "affair," the blocks thrown by Tony Sidaway, the threats by Kelly Martin, and even the evidence offered by Tony Sidaway, and unless that trend is reversed, until the paternalism and assumption that privacy is preferred, we're all going to be back again with the same crisis. Geogre 02:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You have some good points here, Geogre, and I certainly don't want to sound like I'm dismissing them. I simply feel that, if this level of accountability and in-public-ness is required, I don't feel that it's satisfactory to just limit it to communication from recused arbitrators and clerks. Perhaps the whole issue needs to be examined. I don't feel that a recused arbitrator commenting about a case is worse than quite a few other users doing so.
One thing I've seen mentioned around here that I want to dispel: while it was discussed at the time, the clerks have not in actuality been providing case summaries for the arbitrators, and I personally read the evidence myself and do not rely on anyone's summary of things.
Tired and off to bed, so I'd like to address the rest of this at a later time; you may also email me about all this if you wish. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I had thought there were no summaries, but, without being melodramatic, it's true that the silencing of people by private discussion areas left the rest of us without being sure. I know that's a little grand, but it's true. Hamster Sandwich has a logical point, though. The folks who recuse do so for conflict, and that means they're admitting to being unnamed parties, so, of all people, they should not be commenting where there is no accountability. That's why they, more than others, should not be commenting privately at a ready-made area. A mere promise that they shall not would be sufficient for most people. At any rate, this is one piece of a larger issue, as you say. Geogre 11:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:PD-USSR[edit]

Hi... can you help out at Template talk:PD-USSR? I'm concerned that attempts to sort out the current incorrect classifications and, especially, our ending our problematically acquiring more incorrectly labelled images, are being held up by users reverting the template editing for ideological as opposed to copyright priorities. I'm unclear as to how to proceed with image cleanup in the face of this. Assistance, or just advice, would be much appreciated. Jkelly 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nospecifically disruptive admin[edit]


I was just wondering if theres anything I could do about an administrator that is very disruptive. Theres nothing specific hes done wrong, but just everything he does seems like a disruption or misunderstanding or deliberate misconstuation. Personally I think this person should have his sysop rights revoked - but thats outside my ability to organize. I know you must be busy, but i was wondering if theres any way you could look over this persons edits - and peoples responses to them. I'm just sort of at a loss as to how to deal with him. Fresheneesz 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

De Lorean, and other spellings[edit]

I noticed comments of yours referring to researching the proper spelling of "De Lorean", and even finding details like use of a half space. Since exact spelling is such a confusing issue with De Lorean, I think it would be particularly beneficial if you could list some of your references at John De Lorean and De Lorean Motor Company. ENeville 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Case title[edit]

With your acceptance, "Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline" now has enough to be opened. I'm recused and won't change anything myself, but do you think you could give it a more neutral title so a clerk can open it? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


IP blanked user page and has requested removal; needs to be Checkusered to confirm. Thanks. - RoyBoy 800 06:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately unable to confirm identity with Checkuser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)