User talk:FayssalF/Archive AD

Your request

As a non-admin, I can only see part of the evidence on the case. I therefore don't feel in a position to produce a definitive judgment one way or the other. You've come to a decision and presumably if the individual behind Nobody of Consequence re-offends, then his previous will be taken into account even if the link is not visible to the rest of us. If it doesn't give away too much, could you add information to the IPCOLL battle report page.

Igt the impression than Saxophone may be a more real account than ED for that particular user. If you are in communication with him, then you rpesumably can decide which to unblock in the longer term.

And I'm still happy that I supported you for Arbcom.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. First, thanks for your trust and suport. I appreciate that.

In fact, I am in contact with Einsteindonut in private. Of course, the ArbCom has all details of both cases.

I fully understand your concerns very well Peter. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

• I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from there, those decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before - including you. Between that and taking action, I received his confessions and explanations which I posted on the board. I then took action because of those new developments. An action was needed to be taken while waiting for the community's input. Discussions could follow. The discussions are still open out there. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task Peter. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be in big troubles. In brief, the decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but against tiny minority views on my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

• CheckUsers have confirmed my findings.

• The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case (Einsteindonut's case included).

• Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (it was first limited to admins since it was used to redirect the now deleted NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs) and everyone - including unregistered users - can verify. The account I left did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and consequently its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.

• ...if he re-offends... Well, the reply to that is obvious... He'd be re-offended (sorry for the term - it is only a figurative one since ethically, administrators should never offend but block) by being out of Wikipedia forever. For now, evidence above suggests that he is more an anti-antisemite than an anti-semite. wp:AGF wins for now. Is this nonsense?

• For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases Peter. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with the basis of these privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). Naturally, I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Wikipedia, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners. I am just saying it for the record.

I'll be posting a very important note at wp:IPCOLL. However, and before doing that, I have promised Einsteindonut to review his case. I'll start doing this tonight. I'll be needing help and I'd appreciate if you can contact me via e-mail. Your insights will be very welcomed.

P.S. How come you are not an admin Peter? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Zion Centre

A tag has been placed on Zion Centre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Malleus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles candidates

Do I hava right to vote about featured articles?--Vojvodaeist 19:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Be bold vojvodaen :) → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Just read the instructions there. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The case at AN

You may want to actually redact a few bits and bobs of information in your explanations - I got a bit curious and investigated a little, and was able to determine the usernames X, Y and Z within about 10 minutes (despite not having admin privileges). Brilliantine (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't blame you but I'd blame myself and some of the members of the community who would just argue and won't relax a little and think about privacy first (i.e. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate or This should not be a decision of a single admin or an arb, blah, blah, blah....) Incredible! The problem is that their knowledge of the basics of the case is limited but still...! Whatever you do, you'd just fail somewhere because of that and the intensity of the investigation itself. I appreciate people saying at least "tank you for your work before arguing against a decision. But well. They don't - I am referring mainly to a single editor as you could notice (not more than one). Could you please fix it yourself Brilliantine as I got confused? I've got a headache because of much investigation and baseless arguments. A tip, you could do it while commenting on other issues without people noticing it (reducing the exposure at least). -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain. I think you've done a sterling job, by the way. I'll see what I can do, assuming that Y is the one that needs to be kept private. Feel free to blank this discussion once you've read this. Brilliantine (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For everything you do

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your editing contributions, your patient and tireless work in protecting the project and ensuring a healthy and collegial editing environment, and your ability to see things from multiple perpectives, etc., etc. This barnstar is for you Tiamuttalk 19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF

Check This And This  ;-) « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to your comments

Courtesy note: see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision#FayssalF's comments on Cla68 2(E.1), where I've posted a small response to one of your votes. Regards, Anthøny ✉ 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Anthony. I don't believe I took my decision based on the intention of the proposal.

The second proposal suggests that, in this particular instance, the Committee did act as a fact-finder before finding "no evidence exists." It has not been the case. Yes, the Committee may have acted as a factfinder but there was no plaintiff in that instance.

Mackan explains it well (i.e. evidence of absence -- absence of evidence when evidence should be present; which is not the case) and Newyorkbrad's makes a good point when he says that "[NYB]'s confident that if Cla68 had made another comment perceived as threatening in the months this case has been pending, it would have been drawn to our attention."

That said, I'd be satisfied with dismissing both confirmations for both proposals. I believe that can do the job and would have no problem to propose it.

I'll give you a parallel... In the case of JzG, there was a RfC where user's actions were addressed. The RfC's final outcome was to observe the user's posterior and future actions (i.e. how would a user act after a RfC). In this case, a follow-up (though non-binding) was needed. That explains why we had to re-evaluate and then re-affirm and confirm the unconfirmed (i.e. JzG's posterior actions - see (E) for JzG). fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Posterior

I assume that in [1] you meant to say 'Watching his posterior actions'. 'Watching his posterior' means something quite different from your intent. --Barberio (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You got it right. Thanks for that. fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Russavia

I agree, but the reason for which Moreschi issued his shorter block remains and R. is unrepentant. Colchicum (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Block tag

Please additionally tag account of user:Aminullah as blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminullah , you forgot it, making only blocking of user:Aminullah. 91.94.254.180 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CU clarification: Wikinger/Aminullah

Hi, just for clarification: you did actually verify that User:Aminullah (the original user active since 2006) was the same as User:Wikinger, right? Because the CU request was most certainly done by Wikinger himself, who has been waging an absurd socking campaign to get Aminullah blocked as his own sock - a campaign that I had the feeling looked a good deal like a joe job / impersonation stunt, in revenge for Wikinger's own ban. He had just recently created impersonator accounts like AminuIIah (talk · contribs) (capital-i-for-l name spoof) for the same purpose, and several other really nasty little impersonation attempts with other users.

Just wanted to make sure you really checked the right accounts there, because Wikinger is quite adept at muddying the waters with forged "evidence". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just sent you an e-mail. fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You did good blocking Aminullah, especially because Aminullah/Al-Bargit/Nolik, hence Wikinger trolls here on the same topics: http://pingwinojad.blog.pl/komentarze/index.php?nid=12717425 and because obvious pagemove: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Al-Bargit&diff=208104792&oldid=128120913 91.94.105.66 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminullah/Archive#Correct_Chechen_spelling Both user:Al-Bargit (Wikinger sock) and user:Aminullah have their talks on the same talkpage treated as their common own talk, thus they are sockpuppets of Wikinger. 91.94.141.108 (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinger trolls again: http://pingwinojad.blog.pl/xiega/index.php under the same Aminullah/Al-Bargit/Nolik sockpuppets. 87.96.112.224 (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you stop your trolling? If you are not what what you claim is him then you should be the other one. Either way, you should stop it. Next time, I'll block your IPs. Understood? fayssal / Wiki me up® 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood. Thanks for help in this all. Goodbye! 87.96.112.224 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Never come again here to create impostors and ask us to block someone. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Carcharoth. I have verified what you wrote and I don't believe there is any misrepresentation. I'll be having a look at the whole discussion and give my feedback. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MISOC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MISOC.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

No I honestly don't know what you're talking about - I don't ever recall thinking that the CIA map of Morocco was biased. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We discussed the map Justin. Do you remember? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do remember discussing it; I do not remember consensus. This was one of many issues that I had directly prior to getting blocked and I realize now that it was not resolved. Show me where we found some consensus that would deem this CIA map "biased." I would never have agreed to that, nor do I now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really have to get back to 'show me/show you' game? Honestly, we don't want to repeat something and get the same results. Please use your wisdom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly disputed. I won't claim it is "biased". We have to agree at least that it is "disputed". Yes or no? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Game? Who is playing games? You claimed that we had some kind of consensus and we didn't. You also claimed "I won't claim it is 'biased.'" Take a look at this:

"# 2008-09-20T22:29:52 (hist) (diff) List of cities in Morocco ‎ (removed biased map (please refer to Morocco article)) "

Fayssal, you are the one playing games here. You show me this consensus. I don't understand the question "We have to agree at least that it is 'disputed;'" what is "it" in this sentence? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I said "I won't'". The situation, the map and everything related to Morocco and Western Saharan stuff are disputed. No?

Showing you consensus... Please refer to Talk:Morocco and the archived discussions there. You not agreeing, doesn't mean that there's been no consensus. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay So you did say that, but you'll refrain from now on for some reason? Why? You also wrote on my talk "We've discussed the map in depth at Morocco's talk page for almost two years before finally reaching that consensus." We didn't reach consensus; you're changing what you're saying, Fayssal. The statement "the situation, the map and everything related to Morocco and Western Saharan stuff are disputed" is vague enough that I can't really disagree, I suppose. I do not think it is controversial or biased in any way to show a map of Morocco produced by the CIA or UN, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because it is not about the CIA Justin. It is about the image being used. There exist other versions and none would be deemed 100% neutral for any side. So the argument is moot.

If one objects and 9 agreed, then there's no problem in terms of consensus Justin. That's why the only viable option for us is to recognize at least that the situation is 'disputed'. This is what I mean... By the way, what do you think about this map. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives That map is fine for some purpose, but for showing what "Morocco" is, using an (adulterated) map from the UN or CIA is a better option and consistent with WP:NPOV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that [Image:Morocco_map.jpeg] is consistent with NPOV? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure The notion of showing that map in some context if fine with me; there is nothing inherently NPOV about that map - it represents some kind of claim or perspective that is not NPOV itself, though. A preference in the infobox would be to chose a map that represents the international boundaries of Morocco with the text explaining various disputes, occupation, claims, etc. For instance, see Israel. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. In fact, the Morocco_map.jpeg is very suitable for [List of cities in Morocco]. Why? Because it first shows the dashed boundaries (meaning disputed or non-fixed or whatever -- for that we can add explanations of the situation) plus the cities under Moroccan administration (while, again, explaining the situation -- cities claimed by both parties). What do you think? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No It's not useful for List of cities in Morocco because that article only lists cities in Morocco proper; why would you include a map that also had Western Sahara, since List of cities in Western Sahara is a separate article? I suppose I wouldn't object to including a map or discussion about cities in occupied Western Sahara, but I do object to replacing the sole map in the the article with one that includes Western Sahara. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. A valid theoretical argument ;). It is not a good valid technical argument though since cities in the [List of cities in Western Sahara] are de facto administered by Morocco. Thanks for all Justin. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What? No, that's not accurate: some of them are, some of them are not. Either way, they are not "in" Morocco, even if they are administered under Moroccan military occupation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Justin, you reverted at [List of cities in Morocco] and I stopped and used the talk. You could at least do the same at Morocco and stop where you are as I've done out there. We've talked about that tons of times. Without the talkpage, you won't be able to change anything. I hope you understand what is WP:Consensus (the process) and abide by it. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I posted on that talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Posted' is one thing and this Image:CCC_Flowchart_6.jpg is another. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA

You seem to have waded into a thread about me, which has now deteriorated, egregiously. It would be a good thing if you could re-read the thread, including the diffs I have posted, belatedly, as nobody had told me about the thread. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And so on. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have set up a fresh discussion thread on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

He is doing it again, accusing me that I am intentionally doing something to avoid scrutiny AKA sock puppet. I am not interested any more in his opinions. Where can I file a complaint against him? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here! better than anywhere else I'd say :) I asked about a summary of events. Please, are you able to provide me with a concise one? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well past bedtime here. Please read User talk:216.80.119.92. The conversation that occurred is still visible there. It is not long. I hate to summarize something so short. Please read the original and get full fidelity. Additionally, look at this prior warning I issued. That was the reason why the user's talk page was on my watchlist. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Have a good night Jehochman. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As a side note, our sock puppetry policy is repetitive, contradictory and may not accurately reflect current practices. It would be a good idea to review that and rewrite it to help editors and administrators avoid confusion. This current incident is regrettable, and might have been avoided if policy provided better guidance to all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the state of the discussions out there after I deal with this request. Thanks for the note. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I stopped editing under Lakinekaki after few users started WP:STALKing my edits, and after I was haressed by another 'former wikipedian'. Then, users User:SesquipedalianVerbiage, Jehochman, and NJGW started placing ridiculous block threats on my page. For example, the one that Jehochman just quoted (he BTW loves quoting things out of the context) above about me harassing ScienceApologist is for me [objecting to ScienceApologist's removal (without explanation) of sourced statements (more precisely, whole paragraphs), to which Jehochman responds to me with ...Their edit was not vandalism. It was a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia...

Jehochman essentially accuses me of being a socket puppet and tells me that I must use account. Well, he cannot tell me that I cannot be an anonymous editor, specially not with threats, and that is why his administrative privileges need to be challenged. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If interested in other user's block threats, see this diff[2].

Great and thanks for the summary. I'll have a look at all the diffs you've provided. I'll do the same for Jehochman. Eveything will be sorted out by tomorrow. Now, please focus on editing as this issue have taken much of your times. I'll leave a note at your talk pages once I'm done. Thanks again. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for additional edits above, I just had to add few important things and fixes... 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I am having a look at them. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 07:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF ... I would ask you to look at my comments from the WQA, as it truly identifies the genesis of this issue (the WP:OUTING) which makes is no surprise that the editor chooses to edit anonymously...as permitted under WP:SOCK. To be told to "use one ID or be subject to admin action" is a threat by an admin that needs to be dealt with - hopefully, it was merely a misunderstanding of the user's rights. Feel free to contact me. BMW(drive) 11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Has an outing happened? Please posts diffs. I am not aware of the editor's real world identity, nor have I seen any evidence that they have been personally identified. The user themselves connected their alternate accounts to the main account.[3] They claim to have been stalked and harassed, but they provided no actual evidence. It appears that they had been acting disruptively,[4][5][6] and did not like the scrutiny that their editing received, so they chose to abandon the named account and edit with a variety of IP accounts while continuing the same pattern of problematic behavior.(uses vandalism warning in a content dispute)[7][8][9] I might have assumed good faith, except that they proceeded to taunt other users with a suggestion that they could IP hop in order to continue the disruptive editing.[10] That comment was very rude to the other editors, and that is why I gave the warning. Administrators are not mind readers. We can never know what an editor's intentions may be. We must look at their statements and behavior and respond accordingly. In this case, I made a judgment call to give the editor a warning instead of blocking them immediately, because I had hope that they could change their behavior for the better. If my understanding of the situation was not correct, all the editor needed to do was provide a calm explanation and I would have looked at it a second time. Instead, they pursued a path of disruptive accusations and incivility. Granted, they may have been upset and I am willing to forgive the breaches of decorum if they will agree to cease disruptive tactics, and refrain from switching accounts to avoid scrutiny. I do not see any reason for them to use more than one account at this time. Per WP:SOCK, using multiple accounts to engage in disruption is sock puppetry. (adding) Lakinekaki has suggested that there might have been sock puppetry by those they were in conflict with. On one occasion, I did check for that, but none was found. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like user Hillman is involved in the outing, not Jehochman, though it may have been more of a COI issue: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive457#User:Hillman. At that point, Lakinekaki could have gone into anonymity, but chose to pursue the relationship with Hillman [11]. This lead to others figuring out who the strange new IP who had jumped into the fray was. NJGW (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a much deeper rabbit hole that I anticipated. Perhaps we should look at User:Hillman, and the possible underlying COI editing of Lakinekaki and try to put an end to this controversy, globally. It does not seem that the problems are just going to go away. Do you think I should request arbitration? Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, you repeat your nonsense again. In addition, I was not referring to SA being a SP, but someone else. But that's beyond the scope of this complaint. As for my "disruptive" behavior, your selective diffs, and few of my replies I posted before speak for themselves. STOP ACCUSING ME, it is really boring, rude, uncivil, and above all very very annoying. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, do not revert nor vandalize[12] other people's talk pages. Stay within you 'territory'. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the diff. At least I now understand what you are talking about. I am not sure how I reverted your talk page[13], but I don't think it was my intention to do so. Perhaps it was some sort of edit conflict, or my user error. Sorry for that. In any case, you need to understand that I am not out to get you. I understand that you may feel harassed by other users, but I have no association with them. I am an outsider trying to understand what is happening, and prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Somebody else just reverted the edit.[14] Using different accounts confuses people. That's probably why I reverted your edit. At the time, I must not have realized that was your own talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out to yet another abusive edit that happened after solicited for help[15]. Any other editors you want to bring over here NJGW and to my talk page? Plus, you Jehochman could not have been confused with my edits, as they were done under Lakinekaki. Don't try to find excuses for your abusive actions. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reevaluate your accusations here... there's a huge logical fallacy that only a time machine could fix. NJGW (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You actually don't need a time machine [16] 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are doing it again: ...prevent disruption...

Man, you should get award for your ... I cannot find English word for it, but when I do, I will tell you. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Okay, I think I understand your message. It seems to me that we are having difficult communications, but that there may actually be no real problem. Would you like it if I remove the warning and the other remarks I made, and then we can each go our own ways in peace? Jehochman ^Talk 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to hear FayssalF's opinion on the issue. I don't think that I am only non-admin editor being threated in this way by few admin editors. Something should be done about it. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting possibility. Would you like to provide difs to back up your hypothesis? NJGW (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to provide anything to You for your amusement in wasting my time. However, if right people ask me, I will be happy to post differences, complaints, RfC's, RA's, etc, related to the topic of editors' misuse of "power". 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, please don't get down on anybody at Wikipedia interested in "preventing disruption" in general. That's just silly. Now, here's an issue I'm starting to see emerge: Hillman is accused of "outing" you in the context of a "pseudoscience" dispute regarding an article you wrote about a subject you may study in real life [17] (20 intermediate edits, but all Hillman's). That sounds like a legitimate wp:COI that is important to explore, especially in an AFD. The way I come into this mess is when you come to the Fringe science article and try to alter the very definition of "fringe science". Being allegedly considered a "fringe sciencetist" yourself, wouldn't you consider this a COI? Some might even consider that to be disruption. NJGW (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He was obviously refering to me disrupting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

'...and try to alter the very definition of "fringe science"... I guess my edits there speak lauder than your words here. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, are you a mainstream scientist, because wouldn't you consider this a COI too on your side when editing about Fringe science. Or maybe you can actually stop using ad hominem fallacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe that every single guess you've made about who or what I am has been wrong. NJGW (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you enlighten me? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your guess about me is also wrong, as I am engineer by education, and programmer by what I do. But if you calling me (fringe) scientist strengthens your argument, feel free to call me like that. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a dif where I call you anything. NJGW (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[18] I find that comment itself a "disruption". And stop hiding behind ambiguities of "some may call it", and dare to speak in Your name. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, to bring this back into context, I include myself in "some may call" a COI in this case to be disruptive. It violates NPOV and causes editors to follow their emotions rather than rational facts. If you have a COI, it might very well explain a lot of what is happening. Now that that's settled, please explain your feelings on your possible COI in the new section below. NJGW (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to involve a COI issues here, lets separate the thread, as I have A LOT to say about that. And don't tell me there is a COI on Intermittency. Oh, wait, I am a world renowned expert on it, and they told Hillman to notify me about it! How kind of him. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One day, I will make a rough calculation of how much of my and other editors time and energy was wasted by the nonsense that you caused, and also a comparison with other constructive things that could have been done in this time. I think it can be measured in HOURS. Do you really think that you have a right to waste people's time like that. Because Wikipedia is a public place, and your accusations simply had to be responded to, but you keep going on and on and on and on and on. STOP!. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I recommend again you read this: On civility and Wikipedia in general 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read that essay, and like it. Giano and I are close. I agree with you completely about the unproductive use of time. You are welcome any time on my talk page should you like to discuss things. Jehochman ^Talk 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, even if there was no outing, wiki admin cannot act the way Jehochman acts (nor NJGW for that matter with his copyvio threat). Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to threat other editors with whose edits they disagree with, as was done by few mentioned above. Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to force users to edit under accounts. Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to talk to other editors in uncivil manner, and then when they get response that is too strong on their 'incivility' scale, they wave with blocks. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this editor have a COI in editing articles related to Pseudoscience and Fringe science?

If you want to involve a COI issues here, lets separate the thread, as I have A LOT to say about that. And don't tell me there is a COI on Intermittency. Oh, wait, I am a world renowned expert on it, and they told Hillman to notify me about it! How kind of him. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This suggests there might be a COI. Would you care to comment? NJGW (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I request NJGW shows his RLI (real life identity) in establishing whether he has the same "COI" issue. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As for my edits in Fringe science, I came there after I had observed a squad of crusaders chasing edits on numerous articles, edits that they didn't like, and started labeling and deleting edits with WP:FRINGE without any further explanation. I thought that it would only make sense that the fringe science article that WP:FRINGE cites in the lead should have a solid definition of what the fringe science is, and not definition by some guy who nobody quotes. NJGW could not provide that definition, and when I added a sentence by the author whose work was already cited several times in fringe science by other editors, NJGW threatened me with a block. His irrational reaction to my rational edit could only be explained by emotional attachment to the subject of the article, and therefore I suspect a "COI". 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, can you tell us more about these anti-fringe "crusaders"? Also, can you explain why it is irrational to require editors to follow MOS:QUOTE? More over, do you think that the way I integrated the sentence you are referring to into the lead is an unfair characterization of the author's intent in that chapter? And finally, this section is about your potential COI, so could you please address that issue? NJGW (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You become rational about the edit after I responded to you. I will address the "COI" issue once you and I are on the same level -- RLI's. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep trying to turn this around, would you care to share why you can't wp:AFG? Just because you don't know who I am doesn't mean you don't have to follow Wikipedia policies on NPOV and COI. NJGW (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I explained why I think you may have COI. Your inability to initially argue my edit caused you to threaten me with the block. Your inability to see the real 'admin misuse of power' issue above (in which BTW You are also involved) caused you to turn it into ad hominem COI issue against me. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why you keep avoiding saying who you are? What do you have to hide? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun (since this isn't about me at all, and you've only tried to turn it in my direction since you can't lay anything on Jehochman), let's keep this focused on what I've done:

Not really fun in my opinion. It is also about you for above stated reasons. Jehochman... I respond to him directly, as he doesn't need a lawyer here. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I asked you to use quotation marks when using direct quotes (using a standard template... so if you have issues with the wording of that, this is the wrong place).

What about 0. you issued a block warning? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

2. I pointed out that others in the past have had concerns about your possible COI.

To distract from the issue of Your misuse of admin privileges. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, I might be a 5 year old girl in Russia, or I might be a diamond miner in Africa. I could even be a really successful Turing test. It really doesn't matter though, does it? You asked for a new section to explore the COI angle, I gave it to you. You are now deflecting this as much and as furiously as possible. I'm done in this section. NJGW (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It my opinion it doesn't matter, as I didn't accuse you of COI first, AND I believe in anonymous editing. However, to explore this COI issue, we need to explore all sides of it. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Once you show your RLI, I will first expose the absurdity of 'pseudoscience related COI', than argue 'fringe science related COI', than argue specific articles you may happen to quote, and last, or maybe first, argue Your possible COI. Of course, I will argue COI itself, as well as interpretation of WP:COI as related to me, and interpretation by you etc. This is quite a topic, and don't think it will end in one or two days. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be really disappointed if you are done with this section, as the issue of COI and anonymity is a very important one to discuss on Wikipedia in general. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a reason to believe that you are a professor at some University [19], therefore probably a scientist, and presumably "mainstream", and therefore COI in editing Fringe science article. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You see, when I was putting Hillman's deeds in the context, my edits were being removed for a while, and then 'archived'. He was allowed to speak whatever he wanted, while I was barely allowed to respond. Guess what, I will not let you just accuse me about things without being able to respond properly, which can be done only if I also know your real life identity. If we want to be transparent, lets go all the way. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I will speak about crusaders, if I see from FaysallF that it may actually lead somewhere, and not only waste more of my time. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming truly farcical. Wow, I am glad I was busy most of the day so that I could see the developments. NJGW, I originally thought you were arguing for the sake of argument, and it looks like I was wrong - you appear to be the one that has the most issue with the edits. Where the HECK did this crap about COI on Fringe Science come into play. Do you ever read WP:COI?? If someone actually had GOOD knowledge about a topic, they are welcome to edit it. Stop requesting real life identities...I know it's being done as a rhetorical point, but stop as it's undermining your overall point - that is, that you deserve to edit under either your userid, or anon. BMW(drive) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just applying his (or her?) absurd argument to his (or her?) situation. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about Lakinekaki's personal issues with pseudoscience until this afternoon. Now that I know about it, it explains a lot. NJGW (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of arguing for the sake of arguing, here's an interesting read. NJGW (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion

Issues

There are three different issues. However, I'd try to focus on the first issue while giving you some insights on how to deal with the rest.

A) The alleged sockpuppeting issue which resulted in admin Jehochman's intervention. As everybody knows, the etiquette alert was meant to sort out this particular issue.

B) The original registered account's edits and the outing. I must say that this is the crux of the matter. I'll not judge it though some notes should be taken seriously.

C) Issues related to civility. I must note here that admin jossi and myself have already addressed this issue but I believe that there are still some clarifications to give.

Analysis

Let's start with the main point which prompted the etiquette alert.

A) I've checked the contributions and see no real instance of sockpuppetry. The IP started editing after being outed exactly at the time the registered account stopped editing. He left a note at the registered user userpage and of course the user is free not to mention or identify his IP. However, I must note that the IP owner has stated that "[He] can probably use dozen of public IP's in such a way that you may or may not be able to track them -- depending on [his] mood." No, no moods. There is a very good reason why that is not acceptable... Nobody would be able to verify if different IPs of the same user have been used for the same topic. Unless they are from the same range, using multiple dynamic IPs for the same topic can only be considered as plain sockpuppetry. I know that in many cases, that would not be done intentionally, so please make sure no such thing happens.

Jehochman says that he wasn't aware of the complexity of this issue. That may be true and I'd assume good faith and trust his words. However, that is not really a total valid justification. Admins should have a prior knowledge of the background of the story before intervening or acting. Anyway, the situation is not that bad since it stopped at threats of a block instead of a block itself. I, therefore, see no reason why Jehochman should be sanctioned or anything of that sort. A sincere apology from him to the user would be sufficient unless Jehochman persists. As I can see, there's no reason to believe that something of that kind (persistence) would happen. I advice the user to forgive the actions of Jehochman and concentrate on the essentials (editing and collaborating).

I'd ask the IP to sign all his posts. There have been instances where no signature has been provided. This is not an infraction but in a collaborative project signatures are important.

B) This is not something which I was asked for to help. The IP has shown a preference not to enter in these details though I see that he has been obliged somehow by the circumstances and the inappropriate persistence of user:NJGW. I note the outing by user:Hillman and find that very unacceptable. A word from some admin on Hillman's talk page would be appropriate and any further incident would lead to an immediate block.

That being said...However, I must also note that the IP operator has also outed the user who had outed him. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Same thing. Any further outing of anyone and an immediate block would be in order.

As for the COI accusations, I'd advice all parties to go look for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In parallel, accusations of violations of WP:Fringe should be dealt with at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It is highly recommended to exempt user talkpages from discussions about these kind of issues since it is known that that leads nowhere. Noticeboards can guarantee a wider participation from experienced users who deal with these issues on a daily basis. For this reason, I urge NJGW to use those pages instead and stop arguing with the IP at every page.

C) On civility and Wikipedia in general is only one among a dozen of essays as documented at User:FayssalF/Civility pages. Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy, comes first.

Civility is important and I'd have not intervened if shouting (using CAPS) and using bad words didn't stop. Nobody can fix or sort out anything in a noisy and an uncivil environment. Please, no "idiot", "&#çà" or anything of that kind.

Please let me know if there's anything unclear about this. Thanks. fayssal - Wiki me up^® 01:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you and I are on the exact same page on this fayssal, and that it helps when we all read the whole background. As an uninvolved, non-admin editor who only got involved through my patrolling of WP:WQA, I tend to do a lot of background reading, especially comparing what proof was provided, vice what was left out. My only (minor) disagreement with your conclusion: the user had been outed once. Editors then kept re-outing him by linking his IP address...therefore I do not blame the editor for continuing to desire anonymity by changing IP addresses. Heck, if I was being chased, I would keep trying to hide too. In addition, although cursing is never to be condoned, I sure don't blame him/her for getting a little bit p'd off and finally saying "leave me the $$$$ alone!" and filing in WQA as again, after being chased, I would do the same thing. Again, I'm glad we have a similar analysis (although mine was much less verbose :-P ) BMW(drive) 09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re outing. That's true and I hope I was clear enough that any further outing will be faced with an immediate block. Thanks for your help. -- fayssal - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's take our hands off the block button for a moment. There was an accusation that the user violated conflict of interest for the purpose of self-promotion to write about themselves or link to their own stuff for the purpose of promotion. This underlying matter has yet to be investigated. An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just answered the second part at the thread below. As for the rest, please verify if NPOV is respected. That would be the real 'investigation'. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am recused from looking into this matter further. NPOV is certainly an effective way to judge the content. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI vs. WP:OUTING

...An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They are clearly in conflict with each other unless we see it from a different angle:

• WP:OUTING is part of WP:HARASS which is a policy. It is also very tied to the Wikimedia Privacy policy. This is something much more serious than a conflict of interest because one may be exposing someone else to a risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.
• WP:COI is just a guideline and we can still defer to the NPOV policy instead (like a notable person can still create or edit their own bio as long as they abide by the neutral point of view policy). And, the main point behind the creation of the COI guideline is to maintain a high standard of NPOV after all.

What do you think? -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 16:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hillman

Hi,

I did little search about this user, and found out that not only did he out me twice (in 2006, and 2008), but he also outed other user(s) before, for example this one. I really think he should be 'preventively' indefinitely blocked, which will only help him in his own wish to 'vanish'.

I don't want to spend any more time discussing this or other issues on wiki at this time, but just wanted to give my opinion/suggestion.

Thanks. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please bring me something new. Any present block would not help your situation. It would just be considered plain punishment. We don't do those kinds of blocks. And as I said before, any further outing from any side and blocks would be in order. Thanks. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully there won't be anything new! When I think about it, I like that there is no retroactive punishment. Thanks for response. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I present this barnstar to you for working to successfully close Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. NE2 06:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Echo NE2. Thank you guys for your efforts. Everyme 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you guys. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A question

I would like to ask if the Arbitration commitee can help in other Wikipedias beyond the English one, if the discussion can take place in English.--Vassilis78 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. What and where is the problem? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem, which is going on for months as I have already written to the Wikipedia foundation, is that a considerable number of users are accusing some administrators of the Greek Wikipedia for abuse of their authority. To give a recent example a user was banned for 3 months because he used the expression "fundamentalists babblers" in a talk page, being considered as a personal attack, while yesterday an administrator called the way of editing by some users, including the one banned, as poustrilikia, which means "to behave like a faggot/catamite", a word that is strongly offensive in Greek. The sad thing for me is not merely the behaviour of this specific administrator, but the fact that no other administrator reacted, on the contrary they covered him. Personal attacks and threats have repeatedly taken place.

Two days ago one other administrator said in a talk page that if someone has criticised the administrators that they are authoritarian may be banned. I believe the last statement is the epitome of the situation.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the extent of it or if it is a general problem on the Greek Wikipedia. Whatever is the case, what was the foundation response? I wish I could help but have you tried user talk:Jimbo Wales? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The foundation said that we have to cope with it as a local community. Anyway, thank you very much for your time and help and your advise. I will leave a message to Jimbo Wales, so that we may see if we can have any further advise or assistance.--Vassilis78 (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question re Arabic

Hi :) Sorry to bother you, but I couldn't think of a forum to ask for help with low-level translation. I was doing a bit of maintenance on Australian articles (not that there are very many :P) on the Arabic Wikipedia, and came to some questions which my non-existent language skills, an Arabic transliterator and Google Translate were not answering 100% effectively. I understand you're quite busy, so if you know of a forum where these questions would be able to be answered, feel free to refer me to it.

1. Is كالغورلي a reasonable transliteration of Kalgoorlie (rhymes with "poorly") into Arabic? I changed it from كارغورلي, which looked wrong in the transliterator. It's a redlink anyway, but at least if it's spelt right then that's half the battle.
2. Re كيفن_رود (Kevin Rudd), I am really just seeking a sanity check to make sure I didn't stuff anything up in trying to logically reorder the article.

Thanks in advance. Orderinchaos 05:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ordeinchaos. Sure...

1. كالغورلي is the correct spelling.
2. كيفن_رود is correct for Kevin Rudd.

I hope I answered your questions. Don't hesitate if you got other stuff. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 05:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) Appreciated. Orderinchaos 11:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

The thread you started links to a 2006 community ban discussion. The community wasn't doing topic bans yet in 2006; do you suppose a topic ban would work in this instance as an alternative to a full siteban? The editor is prolific and appears to doing good work outside of the hot button area. Durova^Charge! 06:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That is in fact my position -- including during 2006 (see the 2006 poll). My AN thread title talks about a "serious topic ban/ban" in case others see problems in other areas.

That being said, I'd not support a topic ban with an appeal option. That happened before. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Case an ANI

Hi. I have been facing some unfair criticism and cases of people not AGF as a result of the flawed checkuser case against me. I have posted information here and perhaps you can help review it and help fix the issue. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Einsteindonut and User:Saxophonemn

Hi Fayssal,

Just a quick question regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Einsteindonut: User:Einsteindonut claims here that he was vindicated. The CU page, however, says nothing of the sort. Can you clear this up?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 06:49

Oh dear, just saw this. So what's the final word? Can you update the CU page to make things official?

Cheers and thanks and sorry for the ensuing drama, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 06:51

Thanks regarding the Iroquois article

Greetings FayssalF, thank you very much for extending a form of protection to the Iroquois article, as a regular editor to that article, it is a constant struggle to even try and keep it intact from anonymous vandals, your help is very much appreciated. I'm contacting you regarding another (somewhat related) native North American article titled French and Indian War. If you review its history, you'll see that it is under attack by anonymous vandals posting nonsense on an almost daily basis. I wonder if perhaps you might consider offering even short term protection to that article as well. It is quite a daunting task sometimes to even attempt to keep up with the damage. Thank you for your current help regardless. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. That should give the vandals a rest for 2 weeks. If massive vandalism is resumed after the automatic unprotection, and if I am not around, please feel free to make a request at wp:RFPP. Happy editing. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Heyo FayssalF, I sent you a note. Happy new year. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabist Page

Mate, having a wee problem there, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabist&action=history as there seems to be a banned Mariam83 type obsessive who wishes to insert irrelevant ranting about perceived racism in Arabism (although the arty is about non-Arab Arabists...). As I have bollixed up the reporting and appear to be code incompetent, perhaps you can help. (collounsbury (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

Collounsburry, please file a proper request for a CheckUser here. Regards. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I did for the prior sock was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MarthaFiles_New_Puppet but as you can see I fucked it up. I have talents, but using Wikipedia's obnoxiously awkward system for reporting is not one of them. One reason I rarely report anything or anyone. (collounsbury (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collounsbury (talk • contribs)

I am dealing with the case. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 00:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Mariam83. Anyway, all blocked. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 00:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ouajda foot.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ouajda foot.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ocs.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ocs.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2MTV.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:2MTV.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Medi1.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Medi1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

Hi Fayssal,

I noticed that a few weeks ago you indef blocked the account of User:Obaminator, and remarked that "Creating sockpuppet accounts to question other people's accounts" is not appropriate. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harrass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. Notice the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. At a minimum, you should privately communicate to him/her that such behavior will not be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the notice NoCal100. It's late over here. I'll be looking in depth at the situation and consult the view of some admins (mainly the ones participating in that thread) by tomorrow. Regards. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Koavf

 Done Cheers; I'd forgotten about that completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hi FayssalF. I don't mind omitting that bit if necessary, but I do think it's pretty standard in how previous community editing restrictions, general sanctions or bans have been treated. Where a sanction has been imposed by the community, traditionally, appeals are then handled by the community (undisputed). However, I presume that the issue with the views I added at the end of the notice, are either with the duration before an appeal, or the mention of ArbCom.
• Generally, appeals have never been considered favourably for at least 6 months, where restrictions of this nature has been imposed indefinitely. This is of course arguable.
• ArbCom's jurisdiction on the matter (for the lack of a better word), if any, is also arguable. If my understanding is correct, appeals may be made to ArbCom over any restriction, sanction or block. However, assuming the norms haven't changed from earlier this year (on community bans), the Committee generally won't (and shouldn't) touch an appeal on a community sanction/ban unless it has come to the community first, and additionally, the community could not come to a consensus either way. I don't think exceptions have arisen at any time so far, but it is a grey area and there may be certain grounds to appeal on (eg; all admins in the discussion abused their privilleges or were 'involved' in the dispute, or if there were genuinely private and very very special mitigating circumstances).
• I think I've covered all bases, but please do let me know if you find a problem with anything I've said, and would prefer if I omitted certain or all parts concerning appeals in the notice. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's nothing above which I'd disagree with. It misses considering the main relevant point which is the nature and particularity of the case on hand. We have dealt with a case of a user who had already been banned before appealing and getting a 1RR parole. This is a situation where there was no consensus to ban but there was no discussion, let alone a consensus to an appeal. There was none because it was clear that the appeal was used once. After that there was a breach of the 1RR parole and after that were blocks for edit warring tendentiously. How many appeals are out there?

• • Naturally any banned or topic banned users would appeal regardless of the explicitness of the message/notice. The ban/topic ban already carries that implicitly. Saying it explicitly without being explicit at the community discussion is another thing. --fayssal - wiki up^® 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • With respect, when crafting the sanctions, the very reason I did not specify the duration of the sanction and system of appeals was because I intended those proposals to entail the default terms (those which I've noted above) - it's a norm to have the default appeal terms explicitly specified in the notice, even if it was not in the discussion. The fact he was at ArbCom before, I felt, does not mean that the norm changes, because it's never been a system to only allow 1 appeal. ArbCom have opened cases more than once on the same individual/matter in the past, or passed motions on prior cases, and I see no reason to justify a change to that practice in this case. I made a note in relation to this prior to making my sanction proposals.
    • Essentially (with or without the notice), whether it's to the community or ArbCom, he can and will make as many appeals as he wants. But each appeal carries a risk of its own - in part or full, it may be granted or rejected, or superseded by either more restrictive or less restrictive sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks again for your help Ncmvocalist. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Happy I could help, and I hope it assists in resolving any concerns/problems on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you email me an email address please?

If you look at User Talk:Peter cohen#A friendly note, you'll see that NoC has been in touch with me. Could you please let me have his email.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. The address doesn't work for me either. He hasn't replied to my pointing this out on my talk page. I'm not particularly wanting to pursue this. In posting the Nazi flag, he did rather bring things down on himself. If the JIDF are going to insist on publishing people's real names, I'd much rather him than you. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, since your an administrator, why did you file a report at UAA, your last edit reporting User:Herecomespattypoo. Just curious thats all. 220.239.56.131 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacio

Hi, I had left a message on my talk page, but no one reacted on it. I have declared that the restrictions laid on me by Rlevse were unjust and I requested for appeal. According to Rlevse the reason for restricting me was constantly bickering over whose version of an article is the "correct" one. However all I have done was 3 times removing this excerpt from the Artsakh-article: "Hayk and Sisak are not real persons", which was replaced by User:Grandmaster and User:Parishan ([20][21]).

• First, please note that every time before removing this sentence I have brought up my argumentation in the talkpage ([22][23][24]) as wikipedia rules require.
• Second, this excerpt was absolutely an error: this person (Sisak) is not mentioned in the article at all. I have said this several times on the talkpage and the edits of those users were even objected by an impartial user ([25] [26][27]), who even placed the "Original Synthesis" tag in the article.
• Please also note that I was accused by user Grandmaster himself, who IMO was the main reason for this muddle

I can't see how removing an untidy excerpt from the article can be a reason for restrictions, I thought that the above mentioned users Grandmaster and Parishan were just vandalizing the article (see the talk page, I have mentioned this there in bold). I therefore respectfully request lifting AA/2 restrictions. I will do my best to avoid any edit-warring next time. Thank you for attention. --Vacio (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you for any reason can't react my post above, please link me to an admin or the right place where I can request for appeal. Thanks. --Vacio (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been quite busy Vacio. You can send your appeal to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 15:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI about MVDDS dispute

FYI, one of the protagonists of this old quarrel is adding material to MVDDS dispute that seems to violate BLP, since it suggests the demise of his father's company without providing any reliable sources. His father brings this indignantly to my attention from time to time. The son reverted my last cleanup of BLP at MVDDS dispute. No action from you is needed yet, but I've suggested to Fabrice10 that he could be banned from editing Wikipedia if this continues. If you see a role for further diplomacy, please suggest it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Thanks for the notice. I see that he stopped and that the article is stable now. I'll be keeping an eye on that. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tenerife

Hi Fayssal how are you? I seriously need your help at translating Tenerife. I cam across it a minute ago and was shocked to see how poor and underdeveloped the article was, and then saw it on spanish wikipedia and had to do something about it. Please also let anybody you know who speaks spanish about it, it is a core article Blofeld of SPECTRE (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best BoS. I'd always thought that [tenerife] is a fine article -- I don't know why. Thanks for the note and see you there but I hope you won't mind I am a bit busy in real-life lately. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 20:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Food fight

Hi Fayssal If you look at [28], you'll see that someone has deciding to carry out an all-out assault on Jewish cookery. The complaints about falafel and hummus come despite the articles making it clear that these dishes are of Arabic origin. In fact, falafel even discusses criticisms of Israeli appropriation of the dish. In halva this user sees fit to brand the Israeli section as unreferenced but not the many other unreferenced sections. And isn't this user remarkedly adept at using tags for a brand new user? I don't know how easy it is to crosscheck with potential puppetmasters, but I can't help suspecting that tehre is one out there somewhere.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

MVDDS dispute

Hello Fayssal.

Referring to the message concerning the "MVDDS Dispute"The text is referring to primary Legal documents.
The documents that were attached are legal documents issued by the French Court of commerce.
There is no personal comment, no personal judgement.
The first document is the judgement of the MVDDS company bankruptcy
The second one is the official company identity at the day of the MVDDS company bankruptcy. The Managers names at the time of the Bankruptcy are mentioned on this document.
These are public documents issued by the French Authorities (French court) which I guessed could have been considered to be reliable sources.
Maybe I misunderstood what was a "reliable" source as it seems to me to comply with "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" If the French court document are considered to be unreliable source, then I will be happy to be learn how to identify a "reliable" source. --Fabrice10 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabrice10 asked me the same question. My own answer is at User talk:EdJohnston#MVDDS dispute 2. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Paella

Hi Fayssal.

Here I am again with some awkward question for you which only Mandarins could help me with ;)

It is at the paella article and it is one of the most stupid spats I've ever seen. Unfortunatelly, I couldnt help but to become involved for the sake of project. I just made a spare edit at that article and came to find that some user was very upset to get minors on the text "he has written". You can get acquainted with it at the talk page, starting here [29] and in subsequent posts related to this one. Also, I tried to make some summary seeking help from another Mandarin here [30] to little avail (looks like this admin is actually off). Among others, there are obvious wp:own and wp:civility problems with the involved user.

Despite the inherent stupid nature of this little spat, I think it is fundamentally important that it is solved. I mean, for the integrity of the project we couldnt let people like that getting away with it.

But the spark which made me come here is that I am now also suspecting (due to similar rather rude style and similar interests) that this editor, besides the two other acknowledged accounts (about which I wonder why you need three accounts to edit in the same article anyway...) could be using additional user names.

Could you please-please make a checkuser for me for user:Bluee Mountain and user:Warrington. I suspect one or both could be additional sockpuppets of the main agent in there. All, basically, to evade 3RR and get the impression of support to his article ownership problem.

I guess that Mandarin rules advise this is not the right place for such a request. If so, please let me know how to proceed, and, more important than that, if you have some time to help me out with this if I follow due process....it is just frustrating to have to bother in a long, tedious due process for something which should be solved at ease. And the worst is when, after all, you eventually find mere acquiescence to your request, but little action.

Please let me know if you can help. Mountolive _{le déluge} 14:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this tomorrow. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please.

Thanks a lot. Mountolive _{le déluge} 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Fayssal, as I said, if you dont happen to have time at this moment, I'd appreciate your recommendation of another administrator with more time and the will to help out, because that talk page is getting weird, man... Mountolive _{le déluge} 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I am so busy and apologize for not being able to help. You can file a SSP report so some CU can deal with the suspected sockpuppetry issue. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian Jones

As I am topic banned I can't add this to the main page but "Another source of controversy is the song "Ruby Tuesday", which, according to Marianne Faithfull, was written in large part by Jones."

deleted by

User:77.249.219.128

Is sourced by Faithfull, Marianne, Memories Dreams and Reflections, (London, 2007), p. 11

"Ruby Tuesday was a collaboration between Keith and Brian. It's one of the few cases where Mick had nothing to do with a Stones song, neither lyrics nor melody - but he and Keith got the writing credit. Without Brian, there wouldn't be a Ruby Tuesday"

Faithfull does imply earlier in the same paragraph that Jones using Keith Richards as a medium was largely responsible for the song. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR

Hi, A discussion probbaly needs your attention if possible because of the personalities involved:) Taprobanus (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy FayssalF/Archive AD's Day!

User:FayssalF/Archive AD has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as FayssalF/Archive AD's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear FayssalF/Archive AD! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Greetings, Fayssal. I was wondering if you might be interested in a collaboration for improving The Middle East to good article standards. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be away for a week. I'll have a look at it once I am back. Thanks. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 11:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, don't feel at all rushed into this. Hope you enjoy your... whatever it is you're going to. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You have been absent far longer than you initially stated you would. Is everything okay, Fayssal? AGK 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Hi, sorry to bother you. I've been warring (perhaps that's not the most judicious phrase...) with an unregistered IP editor who has been repeatedly adding the name of a non-notable person to a disambiguation page and the names of other non-notables to various other pages. The name he continues to add to the dab page is associated with the academic institution from which the IP edits are made and indeed there is a single student registered with the school whose name matches. This can be verified by examining the public record of students the school's website has on its frontpage. Two or three times other IP addresses have been used that are not associated with the school and I am interested to know if a CheckUser inquiry would reveal them to be socks. The main reason for concern is that there is no way to verify that the IP editor adding the names of this student and others is actually the student in question. As such this may be part of a campaign designed to provoke retaliation against the student as a target. The school that the student belongs to is very open with personal information, and this student's phone number and home address are given. Perhaps I'm being overly cautious, but I can see dangerous potential for problems to arise. Anyway, thanks for looking into it for me, and if you are unable to, please let me know. Editors (at the dab page at least) have been dealing with this problematic editor on and off since possibly as early as October 2006...

The IPs in question

• User:207.200.116.197 - from Mountain View, CA
• User:128.195.92.184 - from the school
• User:128.195.92.155 - from the school
• User:128.195.92.163 - from the school
• User:68.7.126.32 - from Altanta, GA
• User:70.230.194.24 - from Richardson, TX
• User:128.200.100.170 - from the school
• User:128.195.223.160 - from the school

Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I have taken my request elsewhere. -Thibbs (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arabic help

Can you please tell me how to conjugate رآى in the imperfect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahmeditor (talk • contribs)

I believe you are referring to the verb "to see" but I am not totally sure since what you wrote above in Arabic means "opinion". Can you tell me from where you got it? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I got it from Wiktionary - it may have been a typo. I am indeed referring to the verb "to see". Æetlr Creejl 20:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In Arabic, the imperfect usually expresses an action in the present tense. There are several vowel patterns (a-a, a-w (u), a-y (i)) the root can take. The root takes a prefix as well as a suffix to build the verb's form. What follows if the conjugation of the verb:

• Imperfect indicative

singular (I - Ana): أرى - Ara

sgl masc (You - Anta): ترى - Tara

sgl fem (You - Antee): ترين - Tarayna

sgl masc (He - Hoowa): يرى - Yara

sgl fem (She - Heeya): ترى - Tara

plural (We - Nahnoo): نرى - Nara

plu masc (You - Antoom): ترون - Tarawna

plu fem (You - Antoona): ترين - Tarayna

2 persons plu masc (They - Hooma): يران - Yaranee

2 plu fem (They - Hoona): تران - Taranee

3 plu masc (They - Hoom): يرون - Yarawna

3 plu fem (They - Hoona): يرين - Yarayna

• Imperfect subjunctive (same as above as it is a regular verb - Note that Most Arabic verbs are regular ) -- fayssal - wiki up^® 16:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, what is the 3rd-person perfect masculine, if not رآى? Æetlr Creejl 14:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A brief note

I mostly find your comments in the SlimVirgin motion wise and judicious, but I'm troubled by your implication that presence in IRC renders one unsuitable to block - particularly given that, for instance, David Gerard hasn't been in IRC in a month. But more to the point, I think there's a problem with the outright dismissal of IRC as a problematic place. I've spent a fair amount of time in the channel, and while I'm aware that there are occasional problems, the channel is basically active with conversation 24/7, and problems are exceedingly rare, especially for that level of activity. It's just that the random harmonious and productive discussions of stuff don't get talked about on-wiki ever because they're uncontroversial.

In any case, although there are problems to fix with IRC, I think it's problematically broad to use IRC as a test of involvedness, and that it risks adding drama to an already dramatic affair. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins

Hi Svest, Can you drop me a note re admins with an interest in EU and Irish politics. I have a feeling that the page Declan Ganley may get troublesome. It would be good to get some admins interested early. Two single purpose a/c created today, nothing completely ott yet but the page will need to be watched as there has been a lot of recent media interest in the subject and increased vandalism from IPs as a result, and with the EU Elections 2009 and a possible re vote on the Lisbon Treaty it could be a Barak Obama situation requiring a lot of work and more a few admins . Thanks Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Alison may help you. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will drop her a line tomorrow Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RFarb Motions

Requesting your votes on Hoffman case motions so that something can be enacted prior to archiving/closing. Would appreciate even abstention votes on all proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)