Template:AMA alerts

Previous discussions

1. /Archive 1
2. /Archive 2
3. /Archive 3

Please add your comments at the bottom of the page

Neigel,

I am going around trying to reduce all the redirects in Wikipedia to tidy them up. One batch of them I have found come from your Welcome notices which say welcome to Wikipedia instead of welcome to Wikipedia causing an extra redirect. Any chance you could change the template for the future. Thanks User:BozMo

Thank you! I'll fix that, then. --Neigel von Teighen 20:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neigel you have been tricked.... is a very common name in Asia. The search on the two guys just yileds about 400 hits, and most are empy webpages. (see [1])

Argh! I see... Well, with this new information, I'm ready to happily change my vote into a big delete. ;) --Neigel von Teighen 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neigel, Since your vote for delete on this AfD, I have since cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and provided evidence of Notability. Could you please change your vote to keep?

Thanks,

Dave

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I must congratulate you: it is very rare that someone new to WP can persuade so experience users in an AFD as you did, by making the effort of defending your article! Continue so! --Neigel von Teighen 21:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thank you Neigel! I appreciate your participation in the AfD. I found the whole thing an interesting process. It's pretty cool how much the article has changed since it was first written. I plan on expanding it soon, as well (Of course staying within NN and NPOV guidelines). Thanks, again. --Dave 11:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. I think it was worthwhile, partly to convince the other party that all the proper processes were being observed and also because the article was improved. JQ 09:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Neigel von Teighen 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [2] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. You have been indefintely blocked. Then, I'll answer here: Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I can't help you. What yu could do is to ask help to an AMA advocate here, so you can run a Request for Comment (or Mediation or Arbitration) through him (for you're blocked). --Neigel von Teighen 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nicely settling our petty revert war over the Etymology of Latino. It makes it much simpler to simply say Latino occurs in Romance Languages. Hopefully that will settle the matter. Thanks again! Cowman109^Talk 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neigal,

I need help with a dispute over at the Earth Day page. I'm close to computer illiterate so the conflict resolution pages weren't much help. An individual who uses earth as a screen name is deleting facts that he doesn't like. He's also adding insulting paragraphs under the "miscellaneous" heading and the discussion page. He is an ideologue and refuses to work with others towards a resolution.

By the way, how do you pronounce your name?

Thanks, Jeff Bargholz.

Yeah Neigal, we need a third person though I have already asked for one from AMA (Bargholz insists the third person was biased however). And as you can see, there are already personal attack (ie ideologue) flying around at Talk:Earth Day done by him. You may see how he handled "resolution" with personal attack. __earth ^(Talk) 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me as mediator (i.e. try to make you both resolve the issue, without taking party), or only as a third opinion (only give some opinions and take party)? By the way, my name is Neigel (a "germanized" form of Nigel). --Neigel von Teighen 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from your userboxes you're interested in Ancient Greek. I've submitted a proposal to add an Ancient Greek Wikisource on Meta, and I'd be very grateful if you could assist me by either voting in Support of the proposal, or even adding your name as one of the contributors in the template. (NB: I'm posting this to a lot of people, so please reply to my talkpage or to Meta) --Nema Fakei 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 21:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imaglang! There is a voting at Meta for opening a Wikipedia in Quenya. Perhaps you would like to vote: here. Meanwhile, there is a test Wikipedia in Quenya started at the Incubator: here. I bet you would like to participate. :)

Hope to see you there, --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in user's talk page --Neigel von Teighen 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I was very pleased at how quickly you got back to me. For refresher, the user i'm attempting to put up for RfARB has filed an RfC and an RfARB in bad faith, as well as accused several other editors of persecution and personal attacks. He has even falsely reported me to adminitrative noticeboards, and placed inappropriate warning templates on my userspace and my talkspace.

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by the user's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behaviour into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this -- do you have any suggestions?

/Blaxthos 11:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now very difficult: we need 5 accepting votes to reach arbitration. Maybe, the best should be to contact some of your witnesses and tell them to write a brief statement on the request; that could make arbs notice that this is a serious deal. --Neigel von Teighen 16:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Notices left for the witnesses regarding the urgency of their statements. I think it may come down to timing -- who posts first, ArbCom members or witnesses. In out of band contact with the ArbCom member currently commenting, he suggested trying to get a community ban from a collective group of admins. /Blaxthos 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two listed (and most heavily involved) witnesses have wow submitted statements. One even went back and clarified his feeling that ArbCom needs to look into this. As far as diffs, I rearranged the workspace. Any cite-needed tags means I have a diff but haven't referenced it yet. Since I have no prior experience, I have no idea how or what to prepare. What's your opinion of what I've got so far? Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are perfect; now it's time to wait what happens. On the other hand, your workspace maybe should need some more diffs; take a look on ongoing arbitration cases and you'll see that very few times the suggestion about not using too much evidence is respected. I have a question: have you tried oficial mediation or not? Normally, cases that haven't passed through Mediation Committee are likely to fail in being accepted for arbitration. --Neigel von Teighen 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence to cite. ;-) Mediation was bypassed because it is apparent to everyone involved (as well as those who have reviewed the case, afaik) that Cbuhl79 is not acting in good faith -- mediation fails to be effective when both parties are not actively trying to reach an acceptable goal. I believe there would be no point in anything less than some sort of official action, as every other "give and take" attempt has been abused and ignored when it did not suit the other party. I didn't want to go into overkill on the RfARB, but perhaps I should have. Is it odd that other members have no issued any kind of opinion? /Blaxthos 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the idea is to show a bit more evidence. About mediation: in my opinion, it is in most cases useless (in Wikipedia, I mean). About the case: it is very odd that no one responds and it seems to be the same in all requests... Maybe we should post a message on the talk page to see what's happening. --Neigel von Teighen 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're up to four accept, one reject (4/1/0) on our case. All the other editors intimately involved with the case have written statements that try and explain how important it is for the ArbCom to hear the case. All we need is one more vote to accept, right? If/once it gets accepted, how much time will exist to prepare the case? How much evidence do we need to cite? Once it's "official" I am going to ask the other involved members to formally join the project. /Blaxthos 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is just one more vote what we need and that's something very likely to happen. About case presentation: there is no time established, you can add and edit your case summary even if arbitrators are voting their decisions, but it is rather useless to do. The best is to use the Workshop page so you can discuss with arbitrators and state your point clearly. The case summary page is only that: a summary with the statements done during request stage. Then, we also have an Evidence page; there, please put anything you have without much explanation (these are better to be placed on the Workshop page) but try not to show twice a same situation... try to be as simple but precise as possible. When arbitraton begins, I'll write also a brief statement with my opinion about Cbuhl. --Neigel von Teighen 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that now the request's status s 4/2/0... we need 2 more votes now and there are 8 active arbitrators... This means that the two remaining arbitrators that haven't voted yet must support us. Well, these are the rules and we must accept it... --Neigel von Teighen 01:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neigel... I'm fairly disappointed at how the arbitration turned out. I believe the validity of the system is degraded significantly when fewer than half of the ArbCom members are active. I don't plan on actively doing anything else with this case, and I think it's fine to close. However, there is strong belief that Cbuhl79 is now using a sockpuppet to advance the same agenda, and if we end up discovering that to be true I may try and re-open the case. If so, will you take it? Or do I just start the process over? In any case, it was a pleasure working with you and I sincerely appreciate your interest, guidance, and insight! /Blaxthos 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for creating that new template for the periodization of Greek. But don't you think it sort of duplicates what Template:History of the Greek language is already doing? I'm not sure if we really need both. - Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Template:History of the Greek language should be transformed into a "Greek language family" template. This one I created seems to me to be more flexible and uses a lot of less space than the other one. Also, this is an adaptation of the template used in Latin-related articles, so both major classical languages can have a similar format (and maybe exiend this to all other classical languages like Persian, Sanskrit, etc.). What do you think about it? --Neigel von Teighen 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to joint the Wikiproject Argentina and the Argentina-related Notice Board. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in! Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am less concerned about the questions of style in the article: Mason Welch Gross, they can be settled by a coin toss. There are very few style rules in the MoS, so most decisions are made by the two or three people editing an article. What concerns me is calling my additions to the article "vandalism" and "fucking up". He is threatening me, to get me to stop editing articles he has created, or articles he feels he owns. When he deletes the timeline, he is deleting the link to the 1920 census image that establishes Mason Gross's parents and siblings.

"Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Without implying in any fashion a sense of ownership, please stop fucking up article I've worked on by adding things that don't belong (timeline, bad form in creating two-sentence sections, etc.). I've told you before, and in this case the information you segregated as "timeline" is already in the article, and if it isn't figure a way to incorporate it in the text. How many times do I have to tell you to stop such unjustified changes. STOP renaming articles in violation of the guidelines regarding naming (common names, for one), sectioning off short one, two or three sentence sections, adding puerile or redundant "timelines" and other "fluff" that I've brought up to you before. Further reversions or edits in this regard will be reported as vandalism. —ExplorerCDT 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)"

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  This is your last warning.
  The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. He is trying to intimidate me to stop me from editing New Jersey topics for which he feels he has ownership. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first let's get the diffs so we can begin to prepare the first step (almost surely a Request for Comment). If we enter a RfC, the idea is that both parties present their evidence and then other users give their support to whomever they think is right... It's the first step on Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution system (see here). At least for now, I would not recommend you an informal mediation unless he starts it. Anyway, you shouldn't scare because of those warnings; Explorer is not an administrator, so he can't block anyone. --Neigel von Teighen 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Message forwarded to User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) --Neigel von Teighen 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neigel, I'll certainly check out the site you suggested as it seems there is no place here for my article, the gang against me is increasing in size and tenacity! Shame though, cause in theory, Wikipedia is actually an ideal place. 23:13 1/12/06 User:Dale34

Ehm, no, Wikipedia is not the ideal place... This is an encyclopedia, you can't create articles with your own inventions. In the other hand, the sites I told you about are specialized on this topic. There, the community is devoted to conlanging and the idea is not an encycopedia but a source for conlangs. Anyway, my personal thought (as it was when I experimented creating languages) is that you need control and copyright over your articles (not GFDL as in wikis); you won't be happy if someone 'corrects' dal'qörian grammar, would you? Consider better creating a website and then listing it on the Langmaker directory... What do you say? --Neigel von Teighen 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the sites you have spoken of are of the ideal. Creating a website is of course the main objective here..most likely a free geocities one for now. How do I go about actually creating a page or article on the langmaker..or is that purely a directory? Yeah, I kind of agree that Wikipedia may not be the ideal place, but to put it another way, I still think it has a place 'in spirit' as your colleague would say; to that I think we'll reach a stalemate. I gather (now that there is obviously a 'delete frenzy' on the go), my page will be promptly deleted shortly? Whats the proceedure here? But thanx agin for the advice, and I may return with an article 'about' invented languages. Dale34

The page will be deleted soonly, maybe in 2 or 3 days (there's no "official" policy about that). About langmaker, I don't know exactly how is working now (I was part of it before it became a wiki), but I saw both directory entries and some grammars... --Neigel von Teighen 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to create an article in Frathwiki..if you have a spare 37 hours, heres the link: http://wiki.frath.net/Dal%27q%C3%B6rian User: Dale34

Wow! It's great! I really like those syntactic innovations (specially on comparisons); strange, but pretty interesting. Keep conlanging! --Neigel von Teighen 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he could post to his own talk page, a mediation or an arbitration page. He needs to stay off articles, their talk pages, and other people's talk pages. He is banned until December 23 for placing extensive attacks on his user page and Talk:Chip Berlet. Fred Bauder 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 19:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I will carefully consider the situation and details. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for your nicely done attempts at not biting new comers on article talk pages such as Talk:George W. Bush :). ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

re: File:AMA1.png

Do you ever play around with comic or cartoonlike graphics? I have an idea that may benefit with something along those lines. More comic style-line drawing, some action and color. Anything you've done? // FrankB 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I like drawing (but I'm more a writer) but I'm really not so good on computer graphics and the result of that is the logo you see. I understand what you want, but (sadly) AMA "look" is not that, it must a bit more serious. I don't know if you saw my other logo. --Neigel von Teighen 12:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎Template:Emot -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neigel. Your efforts were above and beyond the call of duty. Sorry I pushed the limits. I guess my biggest vice is forcing people to think, and this offends some people. And thank you for being patient. Anything I can ever help with, let me know. nobs 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Neigel von Teighen 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will accept you as my advocate and will be emailing you shortly. Jefferson Anderson 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Neigel von Teighen 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imaglang. I am responding to your query at the Starwood Arbitration page. In my view, there are three conflicts that contributed to the Starwood Arbitration. One conflict revolves around links to the Starwood Festival. That conflict was, in my opinion, heading toward resolution prior to the arbitration. The second conflict is in my opinion based upon residual feelings related to the sockpuppetry case against Mattisse. It is my opinion that there has been a disproportionate response to the sockpuppetry case. I believe it is disproportionate because Mattisse has disengaged from the underlying conflicts, but a number of editors have been pursuing Mattisse with virtually no breaks for months, despite Mattisse's disengagement. The third conflict was a rather intense interaction between Hanuman Das and Paul Pigman. I believe this interaction precipitated the filing of the arbcom case, which might have not been filed otherwise. However, the arbcom case might not have been filed merely on the basis of this precipiating factor if the other factors were not also present.

Although Hanuman Das was a signifcant factor in the ArbCom case being filed, he soon afterward "retired". A number of new accounts appeared on the scene which seemed to pursue some of the interests of Hanuman Das not long before or after Hanuman Das retired. Additionally, Hanuman Das had at one point stated an intention to use sockpuppets. I think it was justifiable to be concerned that the retirement of the Hanuman Das account might not mean the retirement of the individual behind that account.

I hope this helps a little to clarify the ArbCom case. I'd be happy to give further clarifications of how I see the ArbCom case if tht would be helpful to you. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 08:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the Starwood Arbitration. Your comments have been insightful and balanced, sorely needed qualities in this affair. I also think it's good that you are Jefferson Anderson's advocate. I think BostonMA's synopsis above is a fairly accurate description of interactions, including the impetus for my filing the arbcom case. Perhaps it isn't clear that Frater Xyzzy said 999 (who is/was a party to the initial arbcom request) asked him to look in on the Starwood case. Since Frater Xyzzy also apparently asked Jefferson Anderson to look at things (they worked together), I think it's understandable that his actions around these matters appeared, um, problematic to some people, including myself. This is not intended to throw aspersions on JA, but merely to point out connections I saw initially. (I say this disclaimer because some people apparently interpret this sort of comment as harassment or an attack, to my great puzzlement. I'd greatly appreciate feedback if you think this is out of line or inappropriate as well.)

I hope you continue to advocate on Jefferson Anderson's behalf. I would like nothing more than to have this dismal maelstrom wind up and I'm sorry that it's become so entangled with what I believe are personal issues unrelated to the core policy violations at the center of the case. Again, thank you for your comments. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing! --Neigel von Teighen 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I beg to differ. Clarity and freshness of focus are refreshing in this case. I do not say that to sweet-talk you or boost your ego. I mean it. This case, in varying aspects, venues and personalities, has been going on since August 2006. I won't speak for others but I know I'm looking forward to a day when it is not a major part of my Wikipedia work. I'm a firm believer in politeness and respect between editors and it dismays me immensely to bring actions such as the arbitration or to detail the behaviour of other editors. Your input is welcomed by me. I'm sure you will do what you think right as JA's advocate. It just makes me absurdly happy when someone I perceive as being basically neutral on the issues weighs in, even as advocate for someone with whom I've had strong disagreements.

Um, I hope I haven't been unduly confessional here. Nor am I encouraging you to involve yourself more than you wish to be or as you see necessary as JA's advocate. I've found this to be a wearying and time-consuming situation. I find it difficult to council anyone to jump into it. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. The case is a mess and no one knows what they want from the arbitration. I have already recommended someone privatey to search an advocate because this user didn't knew what was happening in the case. Then, there's no clarity whether JA is or not a party, no one is writing proposals for findings of facts and mostly are discussing motions and requests. Maybe you know what you want, I spoke in general according to my impression as someone that came from outside and have actively participated in other arbitrations. There are some that try, at least so it seems to me, to fight for everything because they fear to lose in a little detail in the process; whether Matisse has to write or not a statement, whether the CkeckUser has to be maid upon a list of 10 or 11 users... and then arrive people that believe that they must discuss anything and don't remain focused on requesting what they really need. That's my point: the most parties are fighting in all battlefronts (figurated, of course) instead of deciding which is the best scenario and "fight" there. --Neigel von Teighen 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your perceptions are accurate. Unfortunately, I've also felt myself drawn in, shall we say, unproductive and broadly divergent directions during this arbitration. What should be a relatively narrow and specific discussion about policy application and some directly related behavioral problems has blossomed into a nasty and often unnecessarily strategic and complex morass. I wish I could say I've acted in a calm and exemplary manner completely above reproach at all times but irritability and snappish responses have occurred on my part. I've become befuddled by other people's actions and statements, leading to ill-focus on my part as well. I admit I'm somewhat at a loss for exactly what proposals for findings of fact should even be put forward. Once I finished my presentation of evidence, it wasn't entirely obvious to me what should happen on the workshop page. And once a sort of tit-for-tat dynamic started with motions, it appears difficult for people to break out of it. I'm of the opinion that the initial CheckUser motion set the tone for the following motions. I'm still exceptionally bemused about being accused of harassing and attacking JA for what I thought were rather mild statements of explanation. Um. I don't want to draw you into a discussion on that subject considering you're his advocate. My apologies for bringing it up.

Once again I seem to have gotten all confidential on you. Still, your thoughts have been helpful to me in indicating and clarifying my priorities for this arbitration and I thank you for it. I've tried to be general and non-specific in my discussion here because I have no wish to impose my biases on you. I hope you don't mind that I've done a little thinking on the subject on your talk page. Again, thank you. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything goes right and all of you begin to think a little like the ones that have answered me, this will be very fast and productive. --Neigel von Teighen 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you. I hope my rather wordy responses to your inquiries on the Starwood arbitration pages have given you an idea of where I stand. I'd like to state that I have NEVER during all this affair called for a sanction, block or punishment for anyone's behavior, just a plea for it to stop. I also have never touched the articles Pigman & Co. created and/or regularly edit, or stalk their work like they do mine, or call for mediations or arbitrations on them. I can't STAND all this talk about "personal attacks" and "racial slurs"; I don't think that much of any of it is merited, it's just being used to garner support, and I find it appalling when someone acts like they've been damaged when they have not.

As I've said, all I want is to be able to make contributions to Wikipedia. I think the Starwood article is pretty good as it is, and the three involved people who adamantly oppose it are not being objective and have as much POV and COI issues as I do. In any event, I have done a great deal of work trying to supply sources to satisfy them, and eliminated the most questionable material, but they do nothing in return and ignore all improvements. They also won't offer any set criteria for me to try to comply to (except the ones they subsequently ignore my compliance with), or discuss individual articles. Etc, etc.. you can find it all on the pages.

I hope, at least, my response delineates some clear objectives from my point of view. Pigman has said most or all of what I've done should be taken down, and I have no reason to believe that he, Kathryn, or Weniwediwiki have moved a bit from that position. Rosencomet 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ok; my suggestion were done to make people react and begin to take this in a more adult or mature way. It's the only way to make this better for everyone; those who don't want to do it and persist harrasing and making this a nasty case will fall, but it is very necessary to let arbitrators have a clear image on who is who. If the case remains a mess, then, as I said, there can be misunderstandings that may cost. And, because of my more-seriousness request, is that I would like to see JA out of the parties as Checkuser has demonstrated that he is not a sockpuppet of anyone. --Neigel von Teighen 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA is, at root, a good idea. As a way of helping confused newbies or people who are having great trouble understanding Wikipedia, or to help people who have been blocked and need their case presented neutrally, it has obvious merit. It also falls badly flat very often, because the word "advocate" tends to be misinterpreted as fighting the user's corner. A good lawyer will gently but firmly tell a prospective client that their case is hopeless.

• The advocate for nobs01 ended up completely blowing it. Nobs was almost back, and people were content to see that, but the advocate's statement was aggressive, and appeared to be challenging the original ban (which I don't think nobs wanted, he just wanted to come back a few eeeks early, supported by several on the mailing list). End result: nobs is now banned for another year. Bad result.

• The advocate for Rfwoolf has failed (not through any lack of trying) to get Rfwoolf to accept that the problem is not everybody else. The result is that Woolf has escalatred and spread the dispute to the point where a lot of admins are going to ber watching and waiting for him to put a foot wrong, so they can kick him out.

• The advocate for Mugaliens has done nothing whatsoever, leaving the AMA page as a place for Mugs to spit in the soup and pursue his eccentric agenda, instead of persuading him to drop the weird shot about skirts for men and conentrate on aviation subjects.

These are just three I can think of. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ups... I was Nobs' advocate... Pardon me. --Neigel von Teighen 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There is plenty to read, but a fairly clear picture is emerging. I can see what Mattisse was doing, and why she was doing it. I am not condoning what she has done, but I understand her motivation. Was she right or wrong in her convictions? These are grey areas, which only become clear through honest, respectful discussion. I am hopeful that is what will happen. Most people involved seem quite happy to talk. SilkTork 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 09:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaglang

---

Thank you for you proposal at the New AMA Teams(AMAT). Your initiative, leadership, and participation are greatly welcomed. As interim coordinator of the AMAT I highly endorse your efforts and I wish you best of luck in recruiting good wikipedians within the proposed AMAT called: The Arbitration Team. I trust you will lead a good team and I believe such an AMAT has potential for high growth giving this team the potential for good experience advocacy and making wikipedia a better place. Yours trully, --CyclePat 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

For whom are you advocating and what is your goal in advocacy, please? Thatcher131 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case was originally filed based on the actions of editors involved in the Starwood links issue. A second issue involving a dispute at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism was added in the evidence phase in the belief that it was a continuation of the same alleged harassment. However, the two cases have very little overlap. Arbitrator Fred Bauder [3] has decided to consider only the Starwood matter at this time. I have trimmed the workshop page to remove material related to the Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism matter. That matter may be placed before the arbitration committee at any time by filing a separate request for arbitration. If the case is accepted, evidence and analysis may be copied from the page history and used there. Thank you. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia. The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source. Thatcher131 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll be watching if a new arbitration begins; if not, it is almost sure that my work would be finished. --Neigel von Teighen 13:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arb AMA Team now has three members. Geo. 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurra! But we need some more people. The "marketing" campaign is not over yet. At least five members and then we can begin coordinate things more properly. --Neigel von Teighen 11:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordian knot time. :-) I recently received a distressing email from Mattisse about how she feels that she was snubbed by three Advocates in her request for help on the Starwood case. Peeking at her Advocacy page I noticed that you're helping represent User:Jefferson Anderson, and I would like to compare notes and collaborate to ensure that this case is dealt with properly. I'm currently waiting for Mattisse to provide me with more information, but anything you can give me in the meantime would be more than helpful. Thanks! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 16:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk --Neigel von Teighen 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, there is no indication that it would reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, pardon! --Neigel von Teighen 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category you wrote, Category:AMA Teams, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. Eli Falk 09:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It will be associated with Category:Wikipedian organizations and Category:Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates, thank you for the advice. --Neigel von Teighen 11:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot, you worked horribly in my case. Only a few Argentina-related articles and some greek-related, but nothing else. I'll tell your creator about this. --Neigel von Teighen 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neigel! The situation was a little frustrated. Thankfully I made a backup of some of the work. i'm just about to run some other things. But in short: I wanted to create a usefull category, but nobody wanted it. :( I did receive an email from someone concerning supposed changes that will be happening to CfD nominations and everything. --CyclePat 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmm... The category seems a bit useless to me, honestly... though I can see the reasons why you want it. --Neigel von Teighen 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! honestly, that's the first best discussion I've had on this. You give your opinion all while meeting me half-way. Thank you. I think I have other things I will want to do and I will continue to work at finding a solution. This website had the idea.[4] and so did this one which has an interactive map[5]. Yes! most people also thought like you that the category was useless (see CfD) and the deletion review seems to have followed proper process[6]. However, what unevered me was the way the entire thing went down and as explained in the Cities in the UTC CfD. Essentially, I though it was usefull but the process was horrible. Perhaps the administrator that deleted the category could use a little watching and in the future a 3rd oppinion on the way he deletes categories!!. For obvious reason I don't see me doing it because he doesn't want to really talk to me after I tried to do an RfC on his conduct. That page was deleted. And now, from just one stupid lack of procedure, I've ended up at the point where I feel we could probably have to go higher. Thank you!--CyclePat 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem I saw is that the criteria is to vague. A category should be a small box with related articles... but if the criteria used is timezone, you might have lots of cities absolutely unrelated except for that small fact! Is almost a trivia or factoid... (I remember a case where someone wanted to realted A. Lincoln with C. Darwin because both were born at the same date). Hope I helped! Can I close the case? Ah, and please answer the followup to evaluate me... --Neigel von Teighen 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Personnally, we already do that here on wikipedia. That's why we call it en encyclopedia. Cyclo refers to cycling the information and self-referencing. An example consist of dissambiguation pages or even lists. Here is a list of countries. This is a list of countries in the world. A list of cities would be even larger. My general experience is saying we must have a common denominator for the cities but after the UTC timezone "scandal" it appears that such a common denominator is to specific. Do you have any other common denominators... Having a list of cities in the world to me appears to be useless because it's going to be 5000+:1. But they could be in alphabetical order? Or having a list of cities by country? I don't know help me out here because we need to have a list of all the cities. UTC was a managable list. Unfortunatelly, people don't want that. Perhaps List of cities will be the next step to take even though it will leave people wondering in what country or time they are located. Anyway... Thanks for the help. I do have a couple other things I need to do and unfortunatelly, I'll probably be back in 1 month or so doing about the same thing, facing the hord of administrators that just don't like the fact that cities can also be a common denominatory. Finally, I've voiced my opinion and as I said, I tried an RfC, (which was deleted... and I objected... I know what steps to take) My main issue, as I said was with the process and how VoA works. Take for exemple how he closed the Essjay discusion only after a couple minutes of a votes. So... anyway. Unless I missed the boat here. I think we can close it. Thank you. --CyclePat 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close it, then. Yes, I understand what you mean, though I absolute disagree with you. I know the mess there is currently around "Cities" and not just in categories (I fought for official denomination standards on Buenos Aires), but I really believe UTC is not the right criteria. OK, bad luck maybe; next time will be better. Cheers! --Neigel von Teighen 09:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I alone in thinking this stinks to high heaven? Am I overreacting? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not overreacting. We must fight this til the end... but, if we lose the fight, we retire honorfully without any further complaints. AMA was born from consensus and consensus can suddenly kill us as well. Wikipedia game's rules are this way and we have accepted them. I contacted Jimbo for his opinion.

I strongly ask you to "spam" all members, but making them clear that we must fight during the MfD, not after a subsequent deletion. That we will not try to recreate AMA under alternative names like the old OMA (Office of...) or whatever. Any action like that will make the situation worser. Maybe a request for undeletion... the idea is to move according to WP's policies. (Damn it! Why nobody heard me on January 2006? I told you all we needed to ask for "official status" when we had a more-friendly ArbCom half way to support us!).

Maybe, we really are worth zero and should dissappear. Sorry, I'm a good argentinean: I am an hyper-optimist and hyper-fatalist. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your delete comment I have to disagree on one point the whole join a team or leave. To me this is not a good idea as it to me may cuase good advocates to leave the AMA. As for the co-ordinators/Deputy side I was going ot recomend that these "possions" be done a way with and have a structure similar ot the MEDCAB. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 19:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a further discussion; we must focus on this MfD first. Anyway, I think good AMA advocates will the first in creating teams... and my idea should progressively applied with a "buffer" team for those who don't know what team to join/create but want to, I don't want it to do it suddenly. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'm against the requiring team idea is because it would be overly bureaucratic and if the MfD is keep or No Consensus we could be MfDed again because of it. We would fall into the same trap that is affecting us now. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: the idea is that each team would have to organize itself under consensus, rather than having a formal leadership. This will reduce bureaucracy as deputies will dissappear; their functions should be taken by teams and executed by consensus... as WP does in a greater scale. AMA Coordination would be in charge of 1) coordinating teams (no longer to be the head of AMA advocates), 2) regulating and mantaining the system working (i.e. intervenes a team that as a problem focus, merge teams and/or split them in agreement with team-members... in a word: administrate) and 3) mantain/open relationships with ArbCom and MedCom. The "philosophy" I propose is that smaller troops move quicker... and Coordinator will mantain them working in association.

The only concern I have is that maybe it sounds unrealistic for the current AMA situation. Anyway, I repeat: this is a discussion to be held at least two or three months after this MfD. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd almost say that no, it should happen immediately after the MFD. In fact, maybe it should be proposed now. But I can't nail down exactly what is causing so many people to oppose AMA. I've heard that it is "too bureaucratic", and perhaps it did get that way with the new crop of people and the focus on deputies. I've heard that maybe there are some problem advocates. And I've also heard -- and this is the one I have most issue with -- is that AMA involvement caused some cases to go ways people didn't like. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to find cause, apart from the obvious bad performance of AMA... but a bad performance of some advocates (including myself) does not have such a reaction. Maybe, an overreaction... Communities are quite strange and umpredictable bodies. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alothough I'm against the idea of requireing advocate team membership (not against the teams however) I do have an idea for one that would handle the simple cases and the ones that require help with polices and guidlines on the Wiki. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 21:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you a head up the MfD closed as a no consenus. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: ) (Now, we have work to do inside AMA). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;)Yep, I'm going to be setting up my idea for a new team in a few. Going to be one for memebrs who have policy disputes or just need advise on how to handle issues on Wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have done my "Descentralized" AMA proposal on the AMA talk. Just to start discussing it. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have resigned from the possion as Deputy CoOrdinator ( I might go for the CoOrdinator spot not sure yet) that leve Martinp23 to resign and that will leave the CoOrdinator. I agree with the handbook /guide is the first priority. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've done right. Now, let's work on that handbook. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, lets get to work Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I click on your name and assumed I was getting your talk page so I posted in the wrong place. Here is what I meant to post to you. (copied)

Read your note to Steve. I don't need help. I am doing just fine. I thought you knew that as I posted that on the AMA talk page (or whatever it is) where Steve again told me I was whining and everything was my own fault and no wonder I was having a miserable time on Wikipedia. You posted there too, so I assumed you read the post.

I explained there that I have had no problems on Wikipedia since the sockpuppet ring was shut down. Not only that I have gained many friends who now guard my pages from vandalism, and prevented Jefferson Anderson (now using anonymous proxies) from vandalising me and keep me informed. I am being protected now. I have received several Barnstars in the last few months and have helped several articles reach Feature Article status and am working on several more.

I just want to know what is being "investigated", why he chose to put the case "under investigation" and then did nothing, why he refuses to communicate with me, when will the investigation end, and will I ever be given any feedback from AMA as so far I have received none, except his comments about me whining on the talk page. AMA was a bad experience, as one Advocate keep spreading my name around Wikipedia asking about me, and continued to do so after you and I each told him it was doing me more harm. Then he withdrew without telling me nor giving me any feedback. Steve put my case "under investigation" while the Arbitration was still going on, and has done nothing as far as I can tell. I feel my personal laundry has been aired in public by an incompetent AMA.

I guess if AMA is deleted then at least my case "under investigation" will go away. That is one way of getting rid of a horrible experience.

What makes you thing I still need help?

Sincerely, Mattisse 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have sent you an email a minute ago! Please read it before this post). Oh, I thought you wanted help! OK, the "problem" with your case still open is that maybe someone could propose that open cases should remain opened. I'll close it, but after waiting one or two days for Steve's reply. I'm almost acting as a Coordinator and I never liked administrative tasks. Anyway, congratulations!! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where my case actually is? I cannot find that page anymore and lost my bookmark of it. Thanks! Sincerely, Mattisse 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know your viewpoint on my proposal at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting and at WT:AMA. I've proposed that off-wiki communication (by e-mail, IRC, etc) between advocate and advocee should be strongly discouraged. This is to dispell the negative "wikilawyerish" image that the AMA has among some parts of the Wikipedia community, and because I think that in the interests of fairness and impartiality, AMA dispute resolution should be an open process, with all communication available for the community to view. Although I'm not suggesting that any advocates use confidential communication to advise their advocees on gaming the system, I think it's clear that that's precisely what some users are accusing us of. So what do you think of my proposal? It seems like you're currently working harder than anyone else in improving and restructuring the AMA, so I thought you might be interested. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you for the compliment... but I'm not the only one: look Steve and Aeon and the non-AMA Nicholas. They're working harder than I do). I was against it because of privacy issues, but changed my mind when saw that MedCom (who could argue more legitimely on privacy) took this step. It's easy: if an advocate is doing well, why should he fear? This should make us less "opaque" (in Nicholas' words). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned after having been previously driven away by the behavior of several Freemasonic users (see [7] for my goodbye notice and reasons). I've decided not to let these users bully me but would like some assistance. They continuously back each other up, while I have no one to assist me or to observe how I am being treated by them. My request is at [8]. Jefferson Anderson 19:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm currently in another case. Yours, --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I checked the page and your status showed available. You might want to change that. In any case, Aeon1006 has volunteered and I am sure he will also do an excellent job. Jefferson Anderson 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JA: good luck! Ah, and never trust on my status (always forget to change it). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case, which you were named as a party due to being an advocate of another editor, has closed. The decision is as follows:

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

You may review the full decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've agreed to accept the advocacy on this. Let me know how we go from here. The edits being made are original research, one advocate has already pulled out of this case and I'm not sure how you see this moving forwards. I raised the case on the mailing list and it was confirmed there that what was being added was original research. A claim is being made based on primary source, namely that "and a search of WorldCat reveals that as of 2006 Taylor Allderdice remains one of fewer than sixty high schools in the world to have its newspaper archived on microfilm in a major library.<ref name="WorldCat-2">A WorldCat search of the OCLC database on December 12, 2006 for author>corporate and conference name = high school; material type = periodical; and material type = microform returned 56 hits. The Foreword was record #18". This is original research pure and simple, and requires a secondary source to be added.

The claim that "During the 1970's, the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community," stating that it reached more than 5000 readers." is likewise original research in the first part, we have n secondary source stating that the school considered the Foreword to be "Serving Allderdice High School and the community, it's introducing bias and original research.

Use of the term archival distinction is biased. Who declares it a distinction? There's no secondary source, so we don't say it.

Regarding how the the school represents the Foreword as "The student newspaper of Taylor Allderdice High School," using it on the school's web site to document its fund raising efforts, the school board's politics, and the school's prosecution of "the war on drugs in school", again there is no secondary source, this is introducing bias and basing statements on original research, since there is no secondary source which substantiates the claim that the school represents the Foreword'. The fact is that there is an issue of the school paper on the school's website. Any attempt to describe the motive or reason behind any such placement requires a secondary source, which so far is not forthcoming.

There is also a consensus on the talk page that the statement "and security environment where authorities' surveillance of the student body via cameras extends beyond the school campus "even as far as Pittock" Street" introduces a POV and a bias to the article. A third party opinion was sought per Wikipedia:Third opinion, and that third party agreed with me that this was the case, as can be seen on the talk page. Now I can't see why this is being disregarded, but I note that the third party page asks for all to act in good faith. Had the third opinion gone against me I would have accepted that, I'm a good faith user and I know my record shows it.

I'm disturbed by the language on the user's talk page, specifically that declares "I'm happy to follow your advice and look forward to working with others who collaborate instead of retaliate. In the event inappropriate behavior returns". How this refers to this issue is obviously not within my power to know, but frankly I believe this has now become a matter for arbitration. I can't know how my actions have been coloured and obviously I don't believe I am at fault here, so I simply believe the whole matter should go to arbitration. I don't really understand how advocacy works, I believe in accepting this case you believe there are merits to the inclusion of this material, and I don't see those merits being made. I've tried my hardest to discuss this and re-iterate our policies, but believe I standon very firm ground since our policy on original research states both that Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.and further that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Since all the edits I object to interpret primary source rather than simply detailing them, they are not substantiated by reliable sources, and thus should be removed from Wikipedia, per verifiabiliy policy, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. and further iterates that Any edit lacking a source may be removed....

I've attempted to discuss this issue, as can be seen on the talk page, but the argument is simply circular. I see no choice but to open an arbitration case. ~~~~