This [1] is apart of a long going debate/dispute around the lead section. I like to ask you if Stellarkid (talk) way of arguing is according to the discretionary sanctions. I was to answer and confront him about lot of statements in this post but that might inflamate the debate even more and/or become a conflict. Short background. User nableezy put lot of effort keeping it a policy baseed discussion. Cptnono (talk) stongly oppose him but keep discussion on a fair level and motivating his disputetagging of the article well. Advice or intervention appreciated. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a content dispute. Don't raise the temperature. Instead, make your points calmly, referencing facts to reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. No, its not about content dispute, atleast anymore. Please look into this request. [2]. Stellarkid is here on a mission. These editors bring any editor interested in NPOV in conflict. Administrators must interfere much more in IP-conflict articles to keep NPOV and if needed take stand against attempt like this. Or Wikipedia have given up its ideals. Stellarkids request is a scam and he is a big part of the problem, dont accepting WP:NPOV and bringing Israels view into Wikipedia whatever cost. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia has chosen to address me directly here: [3]. May I respond?radek (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how direct intervention would be beneficial. Why don't you ignore them for the sake of avoiding disruption and conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 15:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding conflict only encourages it. I cannot help but to consider the timing of Russavia's AfD during the course of the EEML proceedings as indicating his testing the limits of his topic ban and intending his action as a provocation. However, for now, I will refrain from introducing Russavia's AfD as evidence at EEML. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete. This article is not even questionable. It is rife with original research and sythesis. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I would have preferred some restraint on Russavia's part until the EEML proceedings are complete. I was not commenting on the merits of his AfD. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I see no reason that Radeksz can't address the concerns that I have raised with the article. So long as, like myself, postings are kept to the merits of the AfD; i.e. comment on the state of the article and why he believes it should be kept, and not comment on editors. I wouldn't so tedious as to claim that because Radeksz responds to my post, that he is breaching the topic ban. Discuss edits/articles, not editors. Do you know what I mean? Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than nominating Polish puff-pieces for deletion, why don't you focus on some of the many Russian articles that need attention? There is lots of work to do. Why choose something that is going to inflame other editors? Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on any editor anywhere on that page.radek (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I am Russia topic banned, hence for me to follow your suggestion would entail me breaching that 6 month ban; needless to say, I am editing Russia topics on another wiki :) As far as I am concerned Jehochman, a puff piece (as you describe it) is a puff piece and it does not fit in with being an encyclopaedia, and as an editor who is here for the improvement of the encyclopaedia, such articles will be nominated for deletion; either via AfD or PROD, and I have done many of these in the past, and will of course continue to do so in future. The only reason I didn't PROD this one is due to 1) the fact that the sources are such that a casual observer would believe it is notable, and 2) the fact it had previously survived an AfD. If people are getting inflamed, they need to WP:AGF and argue to keep the article on the merits, which I believe I have presented pretty well as to why it should be deleted. But yes, I did learn of the existence of this article by looking at a previous Arbcom and finding it being mentioned there, and was quite surprised that it survived deletion the first time around. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct Radeksz, you haven't commented on any editor, but I was simply saying that as long as one comments on the article in question, and not editors, then I see no reason as to why you would be in breach of any Russavia topic ban. Commenting on the article, and not editors, is why I asked Matthead to strike his comments, both in the AfD and on his talkpage, and for the precise reasons that I presented. Assume good faith as to why the article has been nominated, and I am sure that decent discussion can follow. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I suggest you not follow my advice then. Go edit something the other disputants would not likely or properly object to. Why are you topic banned from Russia? I was not in on that decision. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, I bet you don't even realize that you have an anti-Polish bias, but since you do have quite a following here also, all I want to do is I'd like to point your attention in that direction because sometimes a word is all that is needed really to the fact that I have been traumatized by Russavia's provocation and regret allowing it to color my perception of editors crossing over from the EEML proceedings into the AfD. --Poeticbent talk 14:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an obnoxious comment for you to make. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend your sense of personal pride. Just wanted to help, that's all, but the decision is yours of course. All best, --Poeticbent talk 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I take issue with your edit summary here. I was not "defacing" the article. Just because it passed a GA review doesn't mean it stays a GA forever. I checked the GA review before moving that tag from lower on the page to the top. The issue was brought up in the GA review and I can't see a response there on how it was addressed. Just a catch all "I think I took care of the rest of the issues" down below. I had also started talk on the talk page prior to moving it if you'd like to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You placed an ugly maintenance tag at the top of a good article. That's not a sensible thing to do. It just passed GAC a couple weeks ago. Your comment about not staying a GA forever is a bit flippant under these circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance tags are not "ugly". I placed a maintenance tag on an article with a very thorough description of why.--Crossmr (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you are the only editor who supports placing the maintenance tag. Please wait a little bit and see if anybody else endorses that action. Right now it is one in favor, two opposed (myself and implicitly the GA reviewer). I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, but let's discuss this a bit. I will admit that I dislike maintenance tags because some folks (not necessarily you) go skipping through Wikipedia sprinkling tags everywhere, rather than actually improving the article. This particular article is very heavily trafficked. If you raise a concern on the talk page, it is likely to be addressed and fixed. There is no need to place the concern on a maintenance tag. It's just not making Wikipedia better, and in my opinion, the tag makes it worse. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No actually I'm not. I didn't place the tag on the article. I repositioned. Another editor had already placed it on their previously. So if you want to count heads its 2 and 2 and clearly disputed. That was clearly pointed out in my edit summary which said "moved to top". Its unfortunate that you have a personal issue against maintenance tags, but they are widely used across wikipedia and community consensus supports their use. In fact you'll find it was Rich Farmbrough who added the globalize tag originally [5] almost 2 weeks ago.--Crossmr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but two to two is still a toss up. Let's get opinions from more editors, and see if we can get the article improved. We are in complete agreement to improve the article. A tag does not make the article better; editing often does. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've written that the GA reviewer has noted that he feels there is too much US centric information in the article. That means you're the only person opposing that viewpoint. Even though you've made a couple of, what I consider, rude comments, I'm going to assume good faith that you'll restore the tag since you're clearly in the minority until the situation is rectified. I have no intention of having the article delisted, but the tag should remain until the problem is resolved so that other editors who might not visit the talk page can be notified of the problem and lend assistance.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a place to insert it on the article talk page, so I'll opine here. With respect to Jehochman, that does look like a somewhat US-biased article. Virtually every section starts with the US viewpoint. Alphabetically, they should be near the end. Chronologically, Mexico should surely take precedence, and Canadian hogs were the first in the world to have H1N1/2009 virus particles detected within them. Obviously the CDC is taking the lead on the laboratory efforts, but pretty much every country in the world is addressing H1N1 - so it could be a little more well-balanced, GA or not. I won't get into my thoughts on public hysteria here, other than to note that on the first day of vaccine release in my area, which was supposed to be for the high-risk groups, pregnant mothers in their third trimester were waiting for hours in line behind the people who apparently couldn't read. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Connecticut we haven't had public clinics yet. They shipped the vaccine where it had to go, to midwives and pediatricians. We have a baby at home so we were all considered high priority. When I took the kids to the pediatrician for their shots, he tells me to get one. I say my doctor has none. He says, "fill out this form and roll up your sleeve." Done deal. I even got a Sponge Bob Band Aid.

As for the tag, there is a section on the article talk page, and if the issue is raised, there are multiple editors who will rapidly help. If that does not work after a few days, then add the tag. I just hate these silly tags and think people should not use them without first making an effort to correct the problem, or asking others for help. I've seen editors going through the wiki sprinkling tags here and there without actually solving any problems. Then the tags sit there for months or years and nobody does anything about them. Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the community likes them or we wouldn't have them. Not every editor has time to fix every problem on every article, but they might notice an issue while reading something casually. They're tagging it (and starting a talk page discussion if the reason isn't abundantly clear from the tag and edit summary) for the very reason that editors who may be more interested/invested/knowledgeable about the article can properly address it. The fact that tags sit on some articles forever isn't grounds for removing tags from articles before addressing the issues. That's an indication we should be encouraging editors to pay attention to those categories and work on article clean-up. Its not a reason to hurl insults and revert over it when its become rather apparent that the tag was warranted.--Crossmr (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plain talk is not an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I'd do such a job, your ears eyes would melt! The article is in a proper state now. A few sections are tagged, and people are working on improvements. Thank you for your input. Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that I was "defacing" the article was an assumption of bad faith, there is nothing plain about that. The tag you claimed I was "defacing" the article with was already on the article, and since your removal plenty of people said, or been shown to have said that they felt the article was US centric. Defacing something has a very negative connotation and the implication was that was in somehow damaging the article be repositioning a maintenance tag. for someone who is an admin and has their own personal essay on rudeness, I would expect a much better choice of words.--Crossmr (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among the first edits he do after his 3rr block. " I suspect he's some unemployed, over-the-hill loser who still lives with his mommy and has lots of time on his " [6]. Please ban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of protecting reputations on wikipedia, given your zealous reversions of my updates to David Copperfield's page. So, the article 350.org is now brought to your attention, in which a probable scibaby sock (certainly a SPA) called Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has smeared the organisation by implying they have some connection to the actions of an unknown individual. The sock broke 3RR edit warring it today, and was backed up by involved "admin" Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is ideologically opposed to the organisation. The incident in question [7] is unrelated, not notable and overweight on the page. I'm interested to see how you handle this. Here's the Talk page discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 11:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it all becomes clear

Some people might assume bad faith after reading this, but I do not. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an RfC on the Talk page of 350.org. I am doing this in order to reach consensus rather than have edit wars done. This is my first RfC. Would you kindly check, at your convenience, that I have entered it correctly?

Thank You, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good approach. I will look later on when I have time. Some of my talk page lurkers (thare are several hundred) might help in the meanwhile. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I'm not going to get too involved. The reason I put up the RfC is to get the opinion of others. In the end, it doesn't matter too much to the big scheme of things. Take care, --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, blocked user Moonbatssuck has returned as Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs) and now MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) and once again has broken 3rr on the article. ► RATEL ◄

And yet another reversion diff. No action to be taken? ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how things work here in terms of line of command, but some other users are trying to get me banned over on the 3RR board because of my past usernames. I already admitted that I acted imprudently at first, but I feel like I am finally getting the hang of things on here. I am in a bind because I understand that you don't want to unblock inappropriate usernames, but now I am labeled a sockpuppet because I admitted those past names. I will keep getting the "blocked user" thing thrown at me. I'm not going to lie and just cheat the system with a new "unconnected" one, so any help would be nice. Thanks,---MoonHoaxBat (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a good word for you. Hang in there. It's just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You protected the wrong version, rewarding the #RR3er Rubin. There are more voices on Talk asking for the smear to be removed than to retain. ► RATEL ◄ 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protect the wrong version I must per our customs. Resolved the content dispute must be, then fix it you can. Jehochman ^Talk 01:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly more voices want the smear removed than retained, and although I tried to compromise and find middle ground with Rubin, he rejected compromise and 3rred. So I have the numbers in the RfC and I have made compromises ... what more can I do against relentless POV editing? So now the article effectively links 350.org to ecoterrorism and an FBI investigation, none of which is appropriate on notability and weight grounds. As I said, given your alacrity in protecting the reputation of Copperfield, I'm intrigued to see if you can be even handed in this dispute. ► RATEL ◄ 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably pointless telling you this, but new name-hopping editor MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is contravening wp:POINT by trying to insert something on the 350.org page because something was allowed on another, unrelated page that he did not like. On the other Talk page he said "It was suggested by User:Ratel in reference to 350.org that articles should not mention unofficial signs that put the organizers in a negative light. I tend to agree with him/her/it at this point." which clearly shows he understands what's right and wrong, but when thwarted he went to the 350.org page, openly cited the other article as reason for putting the negative and barely related comment on the 350.org page DIFF, and things went south from there. You can see where he was thwarted here. This is an open and close case of POINT and he should have been stopped. Will you do the right thing now? ► RATEL ◄ 06:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't like blocking people on questionable grounds. Can we try the usual dispute resolution measures instead? Jehochman ^Talk 07:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too busy, Jonathan. It shouldn't be this hard. ► RATEL ◄ 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent update. With reference to recent posts here, I've attempted to keep that conversation together in once place regarding the currently unavoidable escalation of conflict in response to perceived provocation. I hope it results in constructive and thoughtful dialog. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=323272722

Case requests, irrespective of how frivolous, invalid, or malformatted they may be, are typically not to be delisted except when a member of the Committee states that no more action will be taken on the request and that it may be removed. On that basis, I've re-added the request. Hope this is okay with you. AGK 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it is not OK. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is not User:HarryAlffa's personal sandbox. As a clerk you should ask the committee for permission to move the content to the user's own space where you can help them draft a proper request. That bad request has been sitting there for many hours. It causes needless stress to other users when a malformed request is posted. Peoples' names are posted in a very public place, and they have not been even notified. You should be sensitive to the feelings of others, and avoid unnecessary disruption and demoralization of our volunteers. You should not enable disruptive behavior, nor should you edit war with another administrator. I am very disappointed in the clerks' handling of this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the committee what they would like done. Meanwhile, the request stays. AGK 13:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this many hours ago and was patient. The mechanisms for managing that page appear to have broken down. That's why I acted. Thank you for asking the committee. We should not cause people needless stress. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have contacted a clerk or an Arb many hours ago - that would have been faster. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I (naively) thought they would figure this out on their own. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Um, I didn't say that you weren't patient? Interestingly, the clerk procedures page does actually provide for frivolous requests to be removed. I'll look into whether I can make use of that. And you might have waited hours, but you didn't once alert a clerk to the request; we can't be everywhere at once. Ordinary editors should not remove requests, simply because it sets a bad precedent; only uninvolved clerks or editors authorised by an arbitrator should do so. In the long run, it causes much less headaches that way. AGK 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGK said, Arbitration comment is forthcoming; have patience. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry; I see what you mean. AGK 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. I should have spoken up earlier, because then I'd have been less annoyed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why clerks should watchlist Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and take care of malformed or frivolous requests. I don't know if the subject matter of this request is frivolous, but naming every admin who contributed to WP:ANI over a five day period definitely was. The user posted a 10,000 word statement, and cross posted to User talk:Jimbo Wales.[8] It doesn't get much more disruptive than that, whether or not disruption was their intention. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Seddon assessed the original case request and blanked it for violating procedure. As a courtesy he left a note to that effect and alerted the clerk body and the arbs via email. The arbs advised us to sit and wait to see if a sensible case request ensues first. If it doesn't one of us will remove the case request within a day or so.

However I do not see why you feel that it is OK to disrupt our activities without even being courteous enough to contact one of us first. Had you asked via a comment on the case request page or via an email to Clerks-L, I would have gladly updated you as to the current status. Manning (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities are contrary to policy and common sense. People should not be allowed to use Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests to merely attack other editors. Editors should be notified immediately when their names are posted there. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Further comment. To reply to "you shouldn't edit war with another administrator": not to be obnoxious, but it as simple as this—I'm a clerk, and you aren't; I am authorised to revert; you aren't. It so happens that, upon reflection, I think you are correct in saying that the request ought to be delisted; but alerting a clerk would have been a less troublesome action than removing the request yourself. AGK 14:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny (in a bad way) that you have so much time to chastise me here for one edit, but you don't have time to monitor Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and promptly deal with attacks against good faith editors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'd much rather sit here and give you into trouble :-). No, not really; I just didn't notice the request on A/R, and at this point there are no outstanding clerk tasks to be done. The delay in a clerk visiting the thread in question might be because the bot that we use to track additions of requests to the A/R page has not recently been working. Performance certainly has been impacted because of that in other ways. AGK 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. I'm giving you a little bit more grief than you deserve. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for enlightening me that my activities are contrary to both policy and to common sense, and for reprimanding me for my "attack" on you. We all work hard to achieve a positive outcome, and as I said before, I have thus far and am always willing to respond to any question or request. Please do not disrupt our pages without contacting us first in future, that is all I am asking. Manning (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive to take an action that is necessary to improve matters. It might be out of process, but it is not disruptive. I'd appreciate if you personally would recuse from all matters related to me for a month or so. We seem to be butting heads too often. I'll do the same for you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J, please let this go. There's a good reason we tend to give a little more leeway to every editor on the Arb pages, even when they appear off, and give every chance for someone to build up a proper case without placing added hurdles. If you see something egregious, ask the clerks or the arbs: this is the low-drama low-conflict way of doing things. — Coren ^(talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, if I make an issue on my own talk page, that's hardly bothering anybody. Nobody needs to watch this page (except me). I'd appreciate the clerks treating me more as an equal and less as a plebe. In my view editors, administrators, clerks and arbitrators are all on the same level. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We all are, but the arbs and clerks have a hard enough job without needless conflict with someone else over detalia of procedure. The reason we ask other editors to not step into such things and leave things for the clerks is that doing so is almost unfailingly counterproductive in the long run. Dropping a note in case we didn't notice something is useful, doing things yourself rarely is: the clerks may be holding off according to our instructions, or the best way to handle something may already be in discussion— and unilateral action might end up just forcing our hand in the wrong direction no matter how well intended.

Nobody here is saying "you're not worthy", but we are trying to say that stepping into the fray directly makes our work harder than it needs to be. That this generates some amount of frustration is understandable. — Coren ^(talk) 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. For some reason I have the arbcom-l and the oversight-l mailing addresses cached, but not the clerks' address. I should go look that up. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. We love e-mail; it makes us feel wanted. AGK 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would have worked much faster. I think the original request said more about the editor making the request than it did about those he was complaining about - I've removed it entirely and suggested, strongly, that he use other dispute resolution mechanisms (one at a time) first. In hindsight removing it completely was probably the best idea and in the future that is much more likely to happen with this as a precedent. I admit I saw it last night but I was on my way to bed and was both unsure what to do (except that I agreed that the removal of the complaint was absolutely correct) and felt that it was a non-starter but should be left up as it was until an Arb came along. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman is listed at WP:DRV. Triplestop x3 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Ottava Rima is under civility sanctions, shouldn't he be dragged over to arbitration enforcement? I'm unclear on the exact circumstances of his unbanning. Jtrainor (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. With compliments, Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the clerk asked to keep this off the Proposed Talk pages, I am raising my question again here (please tell me where should I ask this if you don't want to discuss it). I will rephrase my question to: what was inappropriate with my decision to vote and/or my comment itself once the issue popped in my watchlist (see here for my comment on PD). The only thing that comes to my mind is that I could have added a disclaimer about having interacted with Poeticbent often in the past and being a party alongside of him in the ArbCm (but note that such a note was not made by the editor who made the post - so I assumed it is not important and made a comment just like I'd do in any other AfD that would've popped up in my watchlist). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link me to any restrictions he is under. Viridae^Talk 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twpo sections up, I should use my eyes more. Viridae^Talk 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with being a microscopic life form: no eyes. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 15th, Columbia University area Last: 09/13/2009 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Wikipedia Loves Landmarks, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example particular problems posed by Wikipedia articles about racist and anti-semitic people and movements (see the September meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that apply to all people? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Ottava Rima thinks it does not apply to him. That's why it might do some good if he stops assuming bad faith of those who'd rather warn than block him. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a discussion about me, why not open up a RfC type system in which you break down multiple issues each with their own sections and have people discuss the matter. You don't have to post it at RfC, ANI, AN, whatever, but you can feel free to link it wherever you want with worry of me trying to MfD it or anything like that. I have my page for such discussions but no one ever uses it so it is effectively defunct. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]