Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop

message: Hello all, I have asked a couple of small questions at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence - most relevant to this page the question of copying my assertions here - if anyone could offer any advice it would be appreciated. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

message: Both WP:BLP and WP:RS relate to the current block, as does WP:OFFICE, and perhaps even WP:TRUTH (although that seems to have become a lot more sardonic since last I looked at it), but I'm uncertain what principles needs to be proposed. I really feel like WP:OFFICE dropped the ball on properly protecting Giovanni di Stefano, and that Privatemusings added information to the article that while WP:RS'd, contained information which is not in fact WP:TRUTH, and hence ran foul of WP:OFFICE in ways that are difficult to express, and naturally, impossible to share. Still trying to get my head around these though. Any thoughts? -- Kendrick7talk 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I took a shot anyway. -- Kendrick7talk 17:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] and sourcing issues 

message: Copied from the project page, to avoid clutter, and as a better fit here; (in response to the suggestion of restricted editing privileges being restored); Privatemusings (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are currently in a blocked state.  You have requested unblock and the unblock was declined.  You are asking the Arbitration Committee to overturn the block and the block review.  If this is to be done, that is to say, to negate the block, it should be after everything is scrutinized and the case is closed. If they decide to allow you back on at all.  Mercury 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entirely accurate about the status quo, including our understanding. I have asked for limited privileges to be restored, you have indicated that you do not support such an action. Please just give some (short) reasoning as to Why? Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That part about after everything is scrutinized. Mercury 01:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're understanding the kind of statement that I feel is appropriate. It would be something like 'I don't think PM should edit, because he'll cause disruption on any article he edits'. Or 'PM is a liability when editing, because he constantly insults all the editors around him' or 'I don't think this is a good idea because the risk PM represents to the project is too great in terms of his inability to spell'. I'm afraid that in my opinion, you are still yet to explain what harm will come to the wiki by my being allowed to edit Socrates, or do general clean up work. I think that's the least you could offer, as the blocking admin. Privatemusings (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reminded of a Pearls Before Swine cartoon. Pig is on the phone and the voice on the other end says "Read a book." Pig says, "But-" but the voice interrupts, "Read a book, moron." Pig hangs up and walks over to Rat. Rat says "So what did the cable company say about the outage?" Anyway, the point is, you're just going to have to do your time in the county lock-up here, PM. Hopefully, this case won't drag on for too long. -- Kendrick7talk 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, well, don't get it twisted, but I intended myself to be the cable company in that analogy. WP:TIND; Socrates will still be there when you get back. -- Kendrick7talk 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A chat about 'bail' 

message: Blocking Privatemusings will acomplish nothing. He's already said he'll try to stick to one account, so there's absolutly no reason to block--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking Privatemusings will not acomplish anything