CURRENT STATUS - Am shooting a movie IRL so am not doing much outside of clerking and election volunteering. Manning (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Manning Bartlett/Links
• Archives 1 - 2

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In accordance to your comment here, I'm just letting you know I'm planning to close it as no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for letting me know. I shall pass that on to ArbCom. Manning (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, commented yesterday evening :). Thanks for keeping me in the loop, though. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. I tried to not contact the people who had obviously already participated, but I'm sure I missed a few. Cheers Manning (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy-- I was curious if you or any of the other admins who had been discussing my use of userpage resources related to my courses had returned to the thread. I left a rather extensive discussion of my aims and uses. One admin seemed to leave a positive response, and another had mentioned that Wikiversity might make a good location for some projects. Although two people left messages after mine, neither of them had been involved in the earlier conversation, so I wondered what you thought about my description/explanation of why I have organized things as I have. Thanks for taking the time to look into the issue, and thanks more generally for your efforts on the admin side of wikipedia. And, sorry for the bad format, but here is the URL for the archived conversation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#WP:NOTWEBHOST.2C_some_think_we_are..

• Best, Ted Welser --Htw3 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Manning! For some reason, it seems that you put the Election Report for the Signpost at the Dispatch page. That has now been moved, but I'm not an admin, so an admin will have to move the Dispatch to the correct page, over the redirect. (See the Newsroom discussion.[1]) For future reference, Dispatches are coordinated at WP:FCDW. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy - if you check the history log, you'll see that I actually had nothing to do with it. All I did was create a draft in my user space. Signpost editors took over from there. Manning (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see that now; Pretzels moved it in there, and then moved it out again. Since neither Pretzels nor I or admins, we'll have to wait for an admin to fix it. Sorry for troubling you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We crossed in the mail :) If you don't mind deleting that page (the Dispatch redirect), then Pretzels will be able to carry on and move in the correct page. Sorry again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it happens. Page deleted. Let me know if there's sanything else I can help with. Manning (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help; looks to be all set now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my foolishness, I was moving a bunch of pages at the same time, and I matched these two incorrectly! — Pretzels ^Hii! 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until you've managed something of this scale, I think you needn't worry too much about looking foolish :) Manning (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I said was any more incivil than the comments you left on my talk that my behaviour was "disruptive". My experience suggests that you'll probably not understand that, but really that's the way of it. Anyway, you need to specify what you mean by the topic ban. Are you saying you will block me if I comment on any ArbCom space page, or just on the EEML page? You should probably clear this up, because I'd hate to get blocked for closing another ArbEnforcement thread and such. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your page. Manning (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the generous concession. Just out of curiosity, when did clerks get empowered to issues bans beyond the case pages they were assigned to? It's actually good for everyone to know people have the authority they claim. Atm I'm not certain you're doing anything more than claiming it incorrectly. I saw you "clerking" on AE a week or so ago, which is something new in my experience. In my day, an AE clerk's status was no different from anyone else outside his case page. I've not been active the last few months, so if you could fill me in on the historical developments, that'd be great. :). Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I dunno if you intend to ignore the question or not. It'd have been useful to hear your answer, but since I need to know if I need to take the non-EEML part of the restriction seriously, I have reposted the question on an Arb's (NYB's) talk page. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had not had time to answer yet, but had intended to do so. Clerks have authority on all areas of Arbcom space and are not restricted to any one case. While I am acting as the primary clerk on EEML, all other clerks are authorised to take any action they deem necessary, as I am equally authorised to take any action elsewhere in ArbCom space. Manning (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you refer back to what occurred on AE, I did not conduct any "clerking" as such. I merely rectified an error I had made in my capacity as a clerk by incorrectly giving Molobo permission to post at AE. As I had made the error under my clerking mantle, it was appropriate that I post my rectification as such. Manning (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Are there precedents of the kind of general ban you issued to me? If there aren't, then in wiki-terms that really means you shouldn't do it (though obviously you can test). I mean, this is how wiki has to work to work, right? I can see that a clerk can come into another case and ban someone while the other clerks are busy, but that's not really the same thing as asserting that someone's rights are restricted in arbspace outside case space or even outside of the case they've allegedly transgressed upon. If there are a bunch of precedents, and it's all acceptable, then fair enough and I apologize for wasting your time. I hope you'll appreciate that I'm not trying to undermine your position, but want clarification for this important matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - you are CLEARLY trying to undermine my position - I'm not THAT naive. Now I've made my decision, feel free to take it up with ArbCom. If they overturn then I won't dispute in any way obviously. Manning (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the cynicism? I'm not trying specifically to undermine your position. I'm trying to find out what your powers are and hence what my rights are. Systems like this only function properly if people do this ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning! Really glad to hear you'll be doing a weekly election report. Writing it in your userspace is fine, or you can write it directly at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/Election report (replacing the date with each edition's publication date). I'll add this to the regular features listed in the Newsroom, so other editors know about it. — Pretzels ^Hii! 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzels - I'd be happier if you guys handle the actual Signpost side of things. You guys have a routine and clearly know what you're doing in there. (I'm just a tourist.) Regardless I'll alert you and Phoebe as soon as the article is ready each week. Manning (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that you don't see it as "steamrollering" - that wasn't my intention at all. Voting is currently underway using the secret ballot; it's possible that could change, but I don't think that your original text conveyed that, and I was disappointed to be reverted without any discussion. That's why my second wording for carefully states what is currently happening, without in any way taking sides on the ongoing discussion. My own view - I really don't care which method is used, but it'd be disastrous to change the system once voting has started. That doesn't matter for the article, I know, but the fact that voting is underway really should be mentioned, given that the news is at the top of everyone's watchlist. Warofdreams talk 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've reverted again, with a rather rude edit summary. Fair enough, I'll give up trying to clarify the text and just make a comment at the bottom of the article instead. Warofdreams talk 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we're out of step here (the second reversion happened before I saw your comment above). Firstly an apology for 1) genuine rudeness in the first reversion and b) definitely unintended rudeness in second. There's been so much heat over this issue that I was a bit trigger happy and I apologise for that. I'll go back and review everything in light of your comments above and thanks for your input (and sorry for the unwanted bad feeling). Manning (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also - your last version stated that "Votes are currently being cast". Voting doesn't start until Dec 1. Are you confusing it with the AUSC voting? Manning (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Thank you for your kind response. I've now re-read everything, and realise that I've confused the arbitration committee election proper and the audit subcommittee election, so my change was incorrect - please accept my apologies for this. Would it be worth including a brief note in the article stating that this is distinct from the audit subcommittee election now under way (and covered in the next article)? Perhaps I'll be the only person to make this mistake! Warofdreams talk 04:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies offered and accepted - I'm very pleased we cleared all that up and again am sorry for my part in it.. Yes, your recommendation is excellent and I'll do something about it after I cook dinner :) Manning (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I recently declined a speedy deletion request from User:Anti-Nationalist to delete the userpage for User:PasswordUsername, which he says is his previous account that he lost the password for. I declined the request because I could not be sure that he was who he said he was (though I had no specific evidence that he isn't). As both are listed on this ArbCom case, I thought it best to ask both the clerks for their view, and advice on next steps. Thanks in advance. GedUK  10:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Hounding_by_User:Vecrumba. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize for bugging you again, but I wanted you to be aware that User:Sander Säde has been altering my comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Workshop. You can see from this diff how he changed my comment from "Vecrumba, please refrain from personal attacks" to "Vecrumba, please from personal attacks" by taking the word "refrain" out of my previous comment and then adding it to his comment, "Viriditas, please refrain from personal attacks..." Whatever the outcome, I would like to be able to comment without worrying about my words being altered by Sander Säde. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you seem to be behaving exactly in a way Vecrumba described. I altered your comment by accident ([2]), as my comment starts out almost identically - and I apologize for doing so. Assigning an evil plan to an obvious mistake and calling it vandalism, is quite frankly, way, way out of line. --Sander Säde 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nothing to be seen here, both of you move on. I am going to assume good faith about the removal of the word, but nonsense on case pages will not be tolerated. KnightLago (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		To Manning, for your necessary work as an Arbitration Clerk. It takes a very patient - and very organized - person to try to keep the peace on case pages. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've interacted before, but I've noticed as I lurk on Arbcom pages that you've drawn several of the more heated cases recently. I definitely don't envy your job keeping order among so many upset factions, and I truly admire your patience. Thanks for volunteering for a task most of us are terrified of trying to do. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manning,

Colchicum (talk) on Vecrumba's talk page inserted a link leading to attack page on me in the blog and where my personality is being outed.

Is it OK to give there in wikipedia links leading to pages where personality of Colchicum and mailing list participants is being discussed and attacked? Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incivility I can't help with as it is outside of Arb space. However if that is a case of outing then I would pursue it at WP:RFO immediately. Do not engage in retaliation. Please ask the oversighter to alert me as to the results of their investigation and actions so I can log it for the arbs. Manning (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Greetings_Wikipedians Vecrumba has engaged in harrassment and outing of an IP editor. Regardless of the circumstances, as long as an editor posts on Wikipedia they are protected by the same rules and policies as everyone else, and Vecrumba surely knows this. Even worse, is that the general tone of Vecrumba's post is very threatening towards the IP. What happens on another website has nothing to do with WP, but what happens on this website is covered by our policies. Manning, such threatening behaviour, harrassment and outing can absolutely NOT be tolerated, regardless of circumstance, and I am asking you to take very firm and swift action here on Vecrumba. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has already been noted and is being dealt with. Because of the specifics of the comment I submitted it to ArbCom for review before taking any immediate action. Manning (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quick response and notation. I will leave it in yours and Arbcoms capable hands. Back to editing now. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Manning. It has come to my attention that one of the participants in the EEML case, User:Biruitorul, nominated Orthodox parishes in Hawaii for deletion on November 3.[3] To the best of my knowledge, Biruitorul has never edited any Hawaii-related articles before, and he has bundled this nomination with three other, non-Hawaii articles, all nominated at the same, exact time. I'm not requesting any action right now, but I thought it was a bit strange, as Biruitorul was one of the mailing list editors whose comments I focused on in a particular case discussion, and I happen to edit Hawaii-related articles on a daily basis. I'm not asking for any action at this time, but I do want you to be aware that some mailing list members might be trying to stir up trouble by nominating articles related to their so-called detractors. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially interesting. Thanks for the notice. Manning (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, thanks for catching that. Would you mind using your clerkful authority to post a notification to the ArbCom noticeboard?  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Manning (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - see here. Thanks for getting the notices out in the first place. Manning (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if it's not too much trouble, could you post the diff of the offending conduct on Vecrumba's talk page? It's a bit difficult to review his unblock request without it. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the block - it was done by KnightsLago. I just formatted the unblock request properly. From what I can tell the offending diff has already been oversighted. Manning (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your facebook page I am one degree of separation away (i.e. I know someone you know, although not that well...). Sorry I didn't make the more recent meetup. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Send me a Facebook message if you like. Cheers M :)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Manning, The evidence page for the case contains a lot of claims regarding wiki behavior of the EEML group on RfCs, ANIs, AEs. How is my request about an incident during an ArbCom election any different from any of the claims on the evidence page? The conflict between Martintg and Jehochman is related to the whole EEML case, is it not? (Igny (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm.... Yeah OK, on re-examination you have a valid point. I will restore it. Manning (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conflict between me and Marting. I don't think we've ever edited the same articles. He's just attacking me as an administrator who responded to an arbitration enforcement request involving him and his friends (who happen to have been improperly colluding on an off-wiki mailing list). This sort of vindetta seeking is relevant for the committee to know about because it may impact whether Marting gets a topic ban, or a siteban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Jehochman admits, there is no conflict between he and I, so his claim that my question is some kind of "vindetta" is nonsense. I asked a valid question regarding his temperament based upon my experience and it was his choice on how to respond. Apparently he chooses to make an ad hominem argument against myself and ratchet up the drama on your talk page, which underlines the need to ask such questions in the first place. --Martintg (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my recent comment,[4] and let's try to keep the conversation together. Manning Bartlett's talk page is not the right venue for this discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If possible can this comment be removed or can you ask Poeticbent to refactor: [5]. His comment was in reaction to this comment by me [6]. Thanks, Pantherskin (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Manning, may I please suggest that you archive that entire section called Extension of remedies may be appropriate because it leads nowhere, and apart from bad faith accusations thrown back and forth by old adversaries, it provides no valid advice nor support for the arbitration committee. --Poeticbent talk 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message here [7], I have learned from my mistake. Triplestop x3 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [8] why was the name of the case changed from the original RFAR? That name makes it look like it is about me, where this case is about collusion and wikistalking from the other three editors. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I had already submitted that very question to ArbCom about three hours ago. The name "hounding of Tothwolf" has been rejected as being presumptive of guilt, but a better alternative case name has not yet been provided. As the case was already three days past due for opening I finally elected to open it under your name alone, as per SOP. If ArbCom provide a better alternative I shall immediately rename all pages accordingly. Manning (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It was also my intention to raise this issue with you directly, but I am not yet finished on all of the steps involved in opening a case so I had not yet gotten around to it. Manning (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for explaining the naming. I'm just concerned that the current name make it look like I'm guilty of something. I really wouldn't have minded waiting a few more days anyway as this issue has been going on for months and few more days certainly wouldn't have hurt anything. Should I contact you or one of the other clerks listed on the page for questions? --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of making one set of parties look guilty, we make the other set look guilty. Harumph. How about "Tothwolf's hounding concerns". Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your concern, but there is no presumption of guilt in any direction. As to your case, clerks MBisanz and DougWeller are the assigned clerks. I was given the task of opening the case as a training exercise (to become fully accredited as a clerk I am required to successfully complete a case opening.) I do not expect to have any further involvement, so feel free to take your questions to either of those clerks. Manning (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were a full clerk already.  ;-) Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to think that. The clerks page and the notice at the top of all the EEML pages makes my unconfirmed status fairly explicit. Manning (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You expect me to RTFM? I was complimenting you on the quality of your work... Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to please deal with this totally unwarranted BLP attack,[9] not only questioning the ArbCom proposed decision, but also flying in the face of your own warning to all participants.[10] The post in question strikes me as misleading and dishonest. It is the last example of a campaign of personal harassment inspired by the failed AfD. And, thanks in advance for your patience. --Poeticbent talk 22:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into this. I am currently at work and don't have time to fully investigate, which is why I am slow in responding. (I will be dealing with simpler tasks in the interim, but this does not mean that I am ignoring this issue). Manning (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Vecrumba violating his ArbCom topic ban with this edit? Offliner (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, and I was in the process of taking action when he posted an apology and a retraction. I'm going to AGF on the matter. Manning (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in process for apologizing for violating my ban by 13 minutes when I realized I was off by a whole day.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manning, may I ask that when Vecrumba returns that he makes an effort to follow Wikipedia:TALK#Good_practices? His posts are generally too long and often serve to "flood" the thread, making the prior comments disappear from view. I'm not saying that he does this intentionally, but we should all strive to keep our comments as short as possible for the benefit of the reader. Vecrumba doesn't, and I would like to be able to both read and participate in a discussion and move forward on each thread without having to be subject to this type of thread-hijacking. Perhaps Vecrumba could follow Piotrus in this regard, as he tends to write very short comments, and this helps everybody work towards resolution, from point to point, thread to thread. Vecrumba often uses the talk page to argue endlessly, and it just doesn't serve the interests of the project. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid point, but there isn't much I can do to control this - I only have authority to refactor TL;DR on the main case page and the evidence page. On discussion pages my authority extends only to enforcing relevance and proper conduct. Manning (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was reading without my glasses on and accidentally clicked the wrong button on this edit [11]. Please accept my apologies. Triplestop x3 04:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm, no foul. Manning (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Arbitrators_active_on_this_case may need an update (Vassayna seems inactive). Also, I wonder: how is a majority calculated when (as the case is here) the number of active arbitrators is decreasing? Will the now-inactive arbitrators votes still be counted? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of these issues and am already in discussion with ArbCom. I shall alert all concerned parties when I have these questions resolved. Manning (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed my text? I think it is very relevant for this ArbCom case that Jacurek is being provoked and baited therefore I request you restore it. Loosmark (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say I disagree. I see it as completely irrelevant to EEML, as was the case during the previous Jacurek AE incident. It is certainly relevant at the AE page and should be discussed there. Manning (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. So Skapperod is free to bring the case to the EEML case even if its "completely irrelevent" to the EEML but I am not allowed to explain the circumstances. Loosmark (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Skapperod is allowed to notify ArbCom that a matter concerning a subject of EEML has been opened at AE, as this is (for better or worse) a fact. Whether this AE action is legitimate or not is irrelevant to EEML and should be discussed at AE. Manning (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your logic, Jacurek is being constantly provoked and baited to show on the ArbCom case that he's a problematic user and needs to be punished. What difference does it make if I comment on AE when the Arbitrators probably won't even read it? And apart from that an admin has already blocked Jacurek there so the case is more or else closed. You are also demonstating double standards because when Skaperod and others started to present evidence against myself, that I am edit warring and stuff, on the ArbCom case, even if I am not a party, you didn't tell them to take that to ANI or AE. You simply told me that I should "not distress myself". Loosmark (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't get my logic. If I missed something against you, I apologise and by all means bring it to my attention. There are vast numbers of comments on these pages and it is not easy to catch everything. Manning (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

now that the case is at arbcom, could you undelete Mikaey/Tothwolf. it is an uninvolved admin's documentation of tothwolf's failure to assume good faith. he granted permission for it to be undeleted a while ago. this is relevant to tothwolf's long history of accusations against others Theserialcomma (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]