User talk:Thatcher/Alpha: Difference between revisions

I have a significant crisis/opportunity coming up at work in the next month. I will probably log in once a day or so to check messages and perform a few clerical tasks here and there. However, I regret that I am unable to answer complicated questions or intervene in new disputes, as I simply don't have the time to study and understand new situations. I hope to be back to normal by the end of February.

User:Thatcher131/Links User:Thatcher131/Piggybank

Libel Accusations

Dear Thatcher131,

An urgent request please - TheBee has accused Pete K of libel on my talk page see User_talk:Lethaniol#Libel.3F, which I believe is infringing upon Wikipedia:No legal threats, and I have responded in what I believe is an appropriate way. Would it be possible to have a look yourself and give some advice/opinions/support Cheers Lethaniol 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Fred Bauder has already taken care of this. Thatcher131 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How has Fred "taken care" of this? The accusation still stands as far as I know, TheBee has neither supported the accusation, nor has he withdrawn it. No action has been taken against TheBee. No apology has been offered by TheBee. This is an attack on my character. This is what TheBee does - it's ALL he does, attack the character of people he considers critical of Waldorf. Today, he again attacks me on my talk page - continuing his harassment of me. He has made this comment: "In the opinion of the independent Thatcher131, after just looking superficially at you editorial contributions to the Waldorf article here, one of your agendas clearly is to bring Waldorf education into disrepute." Is this indeed your position? If it is, you couldn't be more mistaken. Reform of Waldorf is something that is necessary - and many, many, many people agree. I meet regularly with, and am close friends with members in the Waldorf movement, people at top levels of teacher training, high-ranking Anthroposophists to discuss these very difficult issues of reform. I am no more bringing Waldorf into disrepute than people critical of the actions of the current presidential administration in the US are bringing America into disrepute by being critical of that administrations actions. If Fred has taken care of the "libel" issue, I would like to know how - because so far, I don't feel as if my name has been cleared. Pete K 13:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By reopening the case, Fred has indicated that he wishes to consider additional remedies in the case. In other words, the parties were let off the hook for disruptive editing and given a chance to learn how wikipedia works. It hasn't worked out. If you have evidence of dsruptive editing by TheBee, including (but not limited to this accusation) you should list it in evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review. However, I should point out that the source you cited does not say there is a lack of state oversight, does not say there is a lack of a strong central authority, does not blame the alleged actions of one person on the lack of such oversight and authority, and does not call the individual "disturbed" or "unqualified." Furthermore the report is merely of allegations, albeit allegations that the school took seriously. BLP applies to all individuals mentioned in an article, even if they aren't the main subject, and it is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia's entry on Waldorf Education to single out one person to drag through the mud. If there is a reliable, independent and thorough examination of Waldorf education showing that this is a pattern, that might be a different situation. As it is, one misdeed does not reflect on the entire system. Otherwise, I could just as easily claim that public school teachers' lack of training and oversight is responsible for the exploitation of young male students by female teachers. Thatcher131 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf DOES make similar claims about public school teachers - but that's not the point here. We are permitted, by my understanding, to write as well as edit. If "disturbed" is a bad word, a tag can be placed on it or another editor can change it (I think it describes her actions perfectly but somebody else may not - maybe somebody who thinks it's normal to do this to children). If there is indeed an overseeing authority in Waldorf, somebody can produce that information and dispute what I have claimed, or ask me to support that individual claim. This is exactly the process we have here. My claims are certainly no more fantastic than the claims that "Rudolf Steiner was a clairvoyant" or similar other claims made here. If it's a matter of wording things differently, that's fine - other editors have tried re-wording the material to adhere more closely to exactly what is in the article and still the material is removed. Why? This person is a public figure and, as such, has relinquished some rights to privacy - the WP:BLP talks about this. I'm not interested in making claims here that are untrue - but I'm also not interested in covering up incidents that have happened. Here is a thread that discusses incidents like this one having occurred around the world. It's one of the most viewed threads at MDC. Abuse is a common problem at Waldorf - but because there is a religious system in place to cover these things up - you HAVE to accept this religious belief system to be a Waldorf teacher (for any serious position) - incidents don't see the light of day. Does someone pointing to pedophelia in the Catholic church have a right to complain if priests who are found to be pedophiles are simply moved from one parish to another? Is it any surprise that the Catholic church did everything they could to cover this up? That they offered to police themselves? Is it any surprise that exposure caused hundreds of victims to speak up? What we have in Waldorf is a closed system that is very aggressive in attacking people who would expose them. If you will look at the dynamic between TheBee and myself, you will see that this is what's happening here. Pete K 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss the specifics of this edit any more so let me give you a hypothetical example. Let's suppose I were to write in an article on public education, "Public education suffers from the interference of teachers' unions, which often hide problem teachers within the system rather than allow them to be fired."[1] linking to a newspaper article about a teacher who was accused of sexual misconduct, was placed in a nonteaching job rather than being fired, and was accused of misconduct a second time. That violates wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines in three ways.

First, it is original research or opinion, because it draws a novel conclusion from a source that does not support it. There is no basis in the newspaper story to say that public education "suffers", or that the suffering is due to the teachers unions. If I found a good academic study on public education that blamed certain problems on the unions, I could describe the study's findings. But my statement as it stands is my conclusion drawn from a source that does not state the conclusion itself.

Second, it is undue weight. There is no reason, in this source, to think that unions do this in other school districts, or that similar cases have ocurred elsewhere, or that this is a significant problem. Again, if there was a good academic survey showing, let's say, 3 times more sexual misconduct against students in public vs parochial schools, I could cite that. But generalizing from one example to a blanket condemnation of the system violates the undue weight clause of the neutral point of view policy.

Third, it is a violation of the living persons policy. The individual in the story is accused, not convicted. It is completely against policy to name, or cause that person to be named. I don't agree that she is a public figure; if one became a public figure by having one's name published in a newspaper story, Richard Jewell wouldn't be a millionaire now. Also, there is no way to provide balance, as would be required if the person was the named subject of an article.

I don't think you'll have much luck convincing a majority of the arbitrators that your interpretation is correct. Thatcher131 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Removed another attempt by Pete K to include information violating WP:BIO].

Regarding /Review, I am treating it as a proposed decision page. I would welcome submissions by users in the evidence section and on the talk page. Fred Bauder 18:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131: Ok. I put the same question to Fred via email and though I haven't heard back from him yet, I think I understand the basis a bit better now. The problem I have is that Waldorfers paint themselves in a way that makes it seem as though this sort of thing can't happen in a Waldorf school. That's obviously untrue. So how do we deal with this responsibly? - Wikiwag 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If all you have are occasional stories like this, you probably can't do anything on Wikipedia. As Fred says on the review page, it's guilt by association (in addition to the objections I raised). Certainly if one Waldorf teacher accused of a misdeed can indict the entire method, then one nun accused of a misdeed indicts all parochial schools, or one public school teacher indicts all public schools, and I suspect you'll agree that isn't the case. What you need are independent studies. If we were talking about a laundry detergent that claimed to be a better stain fighter than all others, we have Consumer Reports to tell us whether that is so. If the Waldorf method claims to be superior (better teachers, less bullying, smarter kids, or whatever) then hopefully there is some academic or professional analysis of that. If not, then the best you may be able to do on Wikipedia is tone down the pro-Waldorf rhetoric and leave the rest to other web sites. Thatcher131 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, if what I wrote above, that you deleted, again violates policy, how in the world is this issue going to be arbitrated? By email? Are emails going to be shared with the other editors so that they may review and comment? I rather object to the tone of your comment "Removed another attempt by Pete K" - how about next time just saying "deleted comments in violation of"? How about if you don't make assumptions about what I'm "attempting" to do? You have apparently made some kind of personal issue out of this - how about recusing yourself from this process? Pete K 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131: I see your point. And I certainly don't believe it's any more endemic to the Waldorf system than other ed. approaches. Like I said before - they make it out to be a virtual impossibility and that deserves to be countered somehow. But back to responsible the editing question, the next edit I was about to make before it got locked down was on the point of Immunizations [also at Hawthorne Valley]. Would that have been disallowed as well? - Wikiwag 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't raise the same kinds of biography concerns. However, let me raise two points:

• The Albany Times Union story headlined "Values, health concerns clash" doesn't say anything about the lack of immunizations being a part of Steiner's system. It says that a lot of local parents object to vaccination, that Harlemville is seen by neighbors as "Woodstock in 1969 without the music." A school spokesman said "a lot of Waldorf parents object to immunizations on religious or philosophical grounds" and that "We don't discriminate on the basis of race, creed or immunization." It is true that a public school by law can force children to get immunized, and that Waldorf seems to allow parents to skip their recommended shots. But is there any indication that this is a general problem to the Waldorf method, or is it more likely to be a reflection of that fact that parents who enroll their kids in new agey/alternative schools are the kinds of parents who object to vaccination?
• How would you feel about using the favorable Albany Times Union story "Beyond the bottom line; Hawthorne Valley School students learn how to make a difference in the global economy," or the fact that Hawthorne Valley has a 650 acre organic farm, to show that Waldorf school teach social responsibility?

Thatcher131 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't ask me, but... Vaccinations are a taboo for Waldorf - and this comes directly from Steiner. Here is Dr. Philip Incao, one of the top Anthroposophical doctors, discussing vaccinations. At the bottom is a quote directly from Steiner that discusses the evils of vaccination.

The article about the 650 acre farm that teaches social responsibility is a very good and positive thing to add to the Waldorf Ed article. Some of the things Waldorf does right (like this) haven't been properly represented in the articles and should be. If there were ever an opportunity to introduce the good stuff, instead of fighting over the misrepresentations of the not-so-good stuff, I know I'd be very interested in adding that in. Unfortunately, I suspect the group here wouldn't be interested in stopping at the good and very positive aspect of *social responsibility*, but would use the opening to imply, suggest or produce some questionable material about the "health benefits" of biodynamic agriculture - something that hasn't been proven. That's where the frustration comes in (for me) and why we are arguing. There are lots of good things about Waldorf - but not everything about Waldorf is good - and some things are very bad. Pete K 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What Pete K mentions as a generalization is another myth cultivated by the WC-group as part of another myth some of them like and promote: that Waldorf schools want children to suffer. For more on this, see here. For the consensus view of the ECSWE, where the AWSNA is an associated member, see here. Does Pete K know of all this? Probably. Thanks, Thebee 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't belong to the "WC-group" or any group. I don't promote anything. I didn't say anything about Waldorf schools wanting children to suffer. I don't think I know anyone who has made such a claim other than you. Thanks! Pete K 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the immunization question is a good example of the problem we face editing this article: Waldorf schools allow parents to refuse vaccinations in the states that allow waivers. No Waldorf school I am aware of forces parents to do this, it is a parental decision and the schools' official policies are neutral. Anthroposophical doctors such as Dr. Incao do discourage vaccinations, and it is an established part of anthro/Waldorf culture. People outside Waldorf/anthro see immunizations as good, and believe that allowing children to be unimmunized is detrimental to public health. Communities such as Boulder, CO or Harlemville, NY see higher rates of disease, but again within the Waldorf/anthro culture, disease isn't believed to be inherently bad.

Both of these "sides" are based on opinion as well as scientific fact. Presenting the immunization issue as a "problem" within Waldorf is already a POV, because within the Waldorf/anthro community, it's not a problem. We could all agree that teaching children social responsibility is good, but we don't all agree that allowing children's immune systems to develop without vaccinations is good.

Henitsirk 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Henitsirk, immunization is a very good example. There is some debate about whether immunization is safe or unsafe, and Waldorf sometimes pretends to be in that debate - pointing to mainstream sources that question the safety of immunizations. BUT, the reason they point to these sources is NOT because they agree with them, but because they follow parallel paths to Waldorf's intended result - no immunizations which is a spiritual, not a medical matter for Anthroposophists - as Steiner believed vaccines to hinder the development of the soul. So, at issue in such a case might be, do we point out the reasons that are really behind the Waldorf public front, or do we just report Waldorf's position and ignore that they are claiming something publicly that is different than what they believe privately? Similar questions might be asked of issues like religion, Anthroposophy in curriculum, racism and more. Even things that seem innocuous, like biodynamic farming, which many Waldorf people compare to organic farming, have public and private faces. Vegetables grown organically contain no animal products, for example, but vegetables grown biodynamically do. People who are vegans or vegetarians for such reasons see the public (organic) face of biodynamics, not the private (made with animal products) face - unless they research biodynamics. There are lots and lots nuances like this that don't make it into these articles because the public face is all that's supposed to be discussed in public - and there are definitely people planted here to make sure that's the way it stays. Pete K 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Priddy

Priddy must have followed the discussion and he now combines his anti-SSB websites on his other homepage. Andries 20:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shivers.

Most of what Was put int o that article was not 'unproven allegations'.

Its a FACT that he was paid to leave Perrettes house. It is a FACT that the house was vandalised. It is a fact that the court actions mentioned have taken place, including the actions against Buell.

I thought an encyclopedia was about FACTS? These are FACTS!!!! Now revert it back....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lincspoacher (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Philwelch RFAR

Hi Thatcher, I just saw your comment regarding Philwelch's RFAR removal. Do you think it will be a good idea if it was clarified what means he will need to employ to get the adminship back? Or is that already understood? — Lost^(talk) 17:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When someone loses their sysop status "under a cloud," they have to go through a new RFA if they want to get it back. This was stated in the Giano case and applied in the Konstable and Husnock cases, so it's pretty well settled. Thatcher131 18:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — Lost^(talk) 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have yet to see an application of the standard set by ArbCom in the Giano case. ArbCom made explicit remedies about Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, Konstable and Husnock. The test will come when a former admin who has not had a specific remedy about them reapplies. The bureaucrat discretion could be quite broad in that case. The principle may seem settled, but how the application of it goes, when ArbCom has not made a decision, is still quite uncertain. I have been watching for the first trial case ;). NoSeptember 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the final wording in the "Giano" decision applies to admins who voluntarily resign their sysop access "under controversial circumstances" (I suggested the change in wording, which Raul 654 adopted, because people who might otherwise step down gracefully might resist being tarred as having left "under a cloud", plus that phrase has other connotations that I thought inappropriate). I think it's pretty clear that an admin who relinquishes adminship in the face of a pending arbitration filing has done so under controversial circumstances, so I agree that there's no need to maintain the case just for a finding that he did so (although some arbitrators have pursued cases in the past for that very reason, but in those instances the cases were already opened). Newyorkbrad 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is clear that a case was about to be accepted at the time, what you say may be the case, but many RFARs are submitted prematurely in the mediation process or are just weak cases. A request for Arb is hardly a clear definition of "controversial circumstances" by itself. Controversy can be artificially generated, and it will fall to a bureaucrat to judge all of these factors. NoSeptember 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you have to ask yourself two questions. First, would the bureaucrats fail consider a lengthy AN thread, and an RFAR request with 2-1 approval as "controversial circumstances"; second, would the benefit to the encyclopedia of a one to two month-long arbitration process, with evidence and workshop pages, just to confirm what has already happened, outweigh the possible harm. Or rather, the arbitrators have to ask themselves that question. Thatcher131 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I just posted in the case discussion, perhaps the answer here is that the case should be rejected or withdrawn, but only after a couple of arbitrators noted their understanding in the discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not advocating any position on any particular case including this one. I try to get a feel for desysoppings and departures of admins in general. Whenever a desysopping occurs or someone decides to leave the project I look into the circumstances of why they left. Some just burn out, but a lot are involved with a controversy. I ask myself questions like, if either Zoe or Lucky6.9 had requested desysopping would they be considered leaving under controversial circumstances? (One with an Arb request filed, the other with a reprimand from Jimbo) Each departure is unique and each bureaucrat is a unique person (and they often disagree), so ArbCom really can't expect a certain outcome from bureaucrat discretion, nor can a bureaucrat honestly read the intent of ArbCom unless it is spelled out. And don't forget a returning admin can cherry pick which bureaucrat they approach with a resysopping request. One day a case that many considered settled is going to resolve quite differently than expected, and I for one will not put the blame on the bureaucrat. ArbCom can't expect every bureaucrat to be on top of a principle tucked away in a months old case. If ArbCom wants a result, they must ask for it explicitly. To their credit, they have done just that for the 4 admins I mentioned in the first of my posts above. But when they don't make an explicit ruling, none of us can expect a certain result months from now when the details of the event are but a fuzzy memory. Thats my philosophy of the day :). NoSeptember 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm trying to read the arbitrators' (or the community's, because ArbCom typically doesn't make policy) minds here, but to me the intent of the rule is (or should be) "you can't resign while you're at risk of being desysopped, to evade the desysopping or the case where maybe desysopping you is being discussed, and then come back later when the heat is off. But if you want to step away for awhile and take a break, or you decide to leave but then you change your mind, feel free to pick up where you left off." So by that standard, Lucky 6.9 would have left in the middle of a controversy over an ArbCom case that came close to being accepted, and so would have needed a new RfA, while Zoe was not the subject of a case at all (in fact, Jimbo specifically urged her to say). But I agree there are borderline cases; I just don't think Philwelch's is one of them, for this purpose. (If you want to reply, feel free to come to my page; we'll soon owe rent on this page to Thatcher.) Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself am surprised that the ArbCom appears to be accepting the case as it seems to be a pretty clear cut instance of the earlier principle. Perhaps the new arbitrators are simply eager to cut their teeth. If there is a case it may afford an answer to some of the other issues, e.g. the appropriateness of the question on Werdna's RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

After Philwelch posted a statement in the case last night, acknowledging that some of his challenged actions were mistakes, I tried to give him an opportunity to demonstrate that the case was unnecessary by asking him to confirm that he wouldn't seek adminship again without a new RfA. As you will have seen on RfAr, he very much didn't confirm that, and at this point seems almost to want to have the case go ahead, so we'll see what the arbitrators do. Newyorkbrad 11:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip episodes

Hi, a few days ago you made this edit. I reverted it, in fact the image is still there, if you are using a baneer blocker addon on your browser, it is probably the reason the image didn't show up (look at the folder name at upload :s). I wonder if there is any use filling a bug rport, since it is not a bug but a problem with media wiki but that the folder is called Ad... What do you think? Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the original image Image:Studio 60 - B-12.png so I removed it from the page. You re-added an image with a slightly different name Image:Studio 60 B-12.jpg. 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Woops weird... Seems there was in fact 2 images then (I was wondering why it didn't show up on my computer) and you deleted the one on the page. Why did you remove that image? Good thing Orphanbot ran by luck on the other image after your deletion. (That is not criticism I am just trying to understand what happened). Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom

Don't you think that me and Sceptre deserve to get what happened in the arbcom discussions? Sceptre was the blocking admin, and I'm one of Nathan's friends. Of course, not that I found arbcom trustworthy to begin with... ♥ Fredil 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what happened in the private discussions. I am not an arbitrator, and do not have access to their private mailing list. You may ask any arbitrator. I suspect, however, that they will decline to provide you with that information. I'm sure they have informed Nathan privately of the results of their discussions. Thatcher131 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

195 user

I appreciate you are very busy right now but it seems that banned user 195.82.106.244 is likely to keep coming back in various shapes and forms. I suspect this user is now using the Japan proxies again to troll the discussion page as 125.204.39.116. I have reported this on the admin noticeboard.

I, and some other editors, obviously find the behaviour of this user very disruptive and much of what he/she says and wants to push into the article to be offensive. To me, it looks like a classic case of someone taunting and ridiculing a minority out of what seems to be malice and hatred. I could quote examples but I believe you are already familiar with the style by now.

The disruption also seems to have a chilling effect on the involvement of other editors who have no affiliation for or against the BKWSU. Users Smeelgova, Sethie and Jossi were just starting to make edits to the article before the first bout of disruption from Japan started. I haven't seen them since on the article.

So we don't take up too much of your time I am asking for clear guidelines on what we can and can't do when it is clear this user is up to his/her tricks again. For example, can I delete any conversation from the talk page if I have reasonable suspicion that it is this editor trolling?

Otherwise, can you please recommend another admin I can discuss this problem through with or suggest what action I should take?

Thanks & regards, Bksimonb 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the discussion to remove the comments by the suspected banned user. Let me know if this is not acceptable. Please accept that I did try to seek guidance first. Thanks & regards Bksimonb 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally that response is fine. If it becomes more persistent, it would be better to semi-protect the page rather than get into a pissing contest over reversion, which itself would be disruptive. You can ask at WP:RFPP, and link to the first arbitration enforcement case on the 195 editor showing the Japan IPs. (archived in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive4). Thatcher131 13:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and advice. Regards Bksimonb 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Album cover

Thatcher, just a quick thanks for updating Image:TheGoldenSection1.jpg - too busy on the relevant article to note it was now 'unorphaned'... Cheers, Ian Rose 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Two items

Clearly I have some learning to do on how autoblocks, etc. work. Do you know if there is there a primer for newbie admins on this somewhere? Unrelatedly, your input would be very welcome on my proposals (especially the first) on the /Workshop of the Philwelch arbitration. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, maybe WP:AUTOBLOCK? Also, there is a link to the autoblock tool in my toolbox at the top of this page. Thatcher131 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, had never seen that page. In a perfect world, username blocks wouldn't trigger autoblock, but it appears that a perfect world is still a few years away. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that depends. Autoblocking can be turned off when applying a block, although it is on by default. In many cases autoblocking is specifically needed, for example vandals such as Willy or cplot who might create a large number of sleeper accounts and then go on a spree. Autoblocking at least forces them to get a new IP after each block, whether by connecting to a new proxy or unplugging their modem and reconnecting. For less technically savvy vandals, autoblocking may stop them in their tracks. It's just something to be aware of. Thatcher131 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes total sense, I see your point that we would want to block the IP of User:WillyTrollingDrama and not of User:InadvertentDuplicate. FYI, it looks like someone (more experienced than I) should edit/update WP:AUTOBLOCK, which still claims that "administrators do not have the ability to shut off the autoblocker." Thanks again. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trolling"

"Trolling" is a bad-faith effort to cause disruption by deliberately posting inflammatory messages with the intent of provoking an angry reaction from others. Is that how you would describe my role in Werdna's RfA? If so, were Yandman, Majorly and Miltopia "trolling" as well? —David Levy 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you set out to stir up trouble and were successful. Thatcher131 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV, peripheral prior involvement

A deletion review has opened following speedy deletion of Agent M under WP:CSD#A7. You had previously declined a speedy deletion tag, so you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Agent M. GRBerry 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)