Rwilco201

Arbitration

I have responded to your request for arbitration at WP:RFAR and at Talk:Mitch Thrower. I did not realize that you are also a brand new user account. You need to read the policies that I have cited for Mitchthrower to read. In particular, a web site called "celebitchy" does not meet the standards of a reliable source and is completely inappropriate for inclusion in a Biography of a living person, about which special sensitivity is required. Please read these and the other policies I suggested. Thatcher131 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

From Rwilco201

Subsection created to respond to Mitch Thrower emails.

Initial Response

It's becoming quite an exhausting job keeping up with your posts, Mitch. My intention when contributing to your entry was to add to what I considered a biased and unbalanced writeup. As log entries , you've edited the entry directly, through two usernames, and promoted your business and friends through this site. I find that morally repugnant - I have no other agenda other than I dislike Wikipedia being used as a platform for self-promotion.

As for the history editing, you have a habit of long, rambling posts that are hard to read. I've never changed the contents of your posts - just reformatted them so they're easier to read. As you pointed out, administrators are one click away in the history - they can read your novels there if they'd like.

Response to True Colors

A compromise on the reformatting issue - next time, just put your answer in a section, rather than adding it to the entry. Otherwise the entry is harder to read. If you look at my entries, that's all I've done - not changed content or meaning.

I don't know you, don't care to know you, and again restate my position - my objection to you is not personal, it's that you used Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle - by editing your own entry though different accounts. This is wrong, Mitch, no matter what other spin you put on it. I suspect you haven't learned this lesson, but will just get smarter about manipulating media. It's unfortunate, I'm sure you have valuable contributions you could make. Good luck.

Response to Correction

It's readily apparent that the EmilyAshland account is you, or someone working closely with you. This is promotional, even duplicitious. I think my position was consistent from the start, and was firmer after it was discovered you were using sock puppetry and ghost accounts. I'm comfortable using arbitration, and talking with you via wiki administrators or independent journalists, not one-on-one - I don't feel comfortable with you as a person. Again, good luck.

Response to Worth a Read

Mitch, your apology is accepted. The full article is posted on my talk page for anyone's reference - note that I quoted from Mitch himself for the article.

From Mitch Thrower

Please read Mitch Thrower's comments on his "Talk" page.

True Colors

... You reformatted them "Rwilco??" Now that's a new way of looking at (admitting to) CHANGING SOMEONE ELSES communication to administrators and other wiki users during a discussion and talk and arbitration with wiki professionals. I would not call that "reformatting" I call that manipulation and making it harder for the administrators to sort through this unnecessary mess. I'm sure they'll find that as funny as I do.

As stated before, I simply edited out again and again the entry that you made that was in clear violation of wiki policies on "credibility." It concerns me that it took five wiki administrators, attempted arbitration, potential debate and deletion of a wikipage, all for this. It might be a good idea to examine your motivations more closely.

I still would welcome a phone call with you, because I do believe I know who you are. And if you are not this person, then I would feel much better (safer). If you would like to maintain the position that you are not the person I suspect you to be, then please call me directly. You have my phone number. It has not changed. Otherwise it shall remain quite suspect (known) what the real reasons are that you chose to spend so much time on promoting rumors and attacking with subtle, yet abusive language and claims about someone who, indeed you have claimed in several posts you don't actually know.

You are the person who chose this course and time burn for all of us - the history of your posts speaks volumes more than my responses to your mal-intent. And again, I respectfully request that you stop editing my comments and questions to wiki administrators, and on discussion pages. Be well, no hard feelings (just a curious question mark) and I do look forward to reading your non-about me contributions to Wikipedia under this and your other user accounts. And, if you are indeed respectful and a man or women of honor, a phone call would be appreciated - this is my request for you to prove that you are an unbiased party.

-Mitch Thrower

Correction

To be clear, AGAIN the only edits/contributions I made to the entry that someone put on Wiki about me are to correct two dates. I hardly find that promotional. You keep saying that I am using two accounts which is not the case, as demonstrated in other posts on this subject.

You keep saying I'm posting to the wikipage on my name, look at the history carefully - I am NOT posting to my site, and have not - except to delete your continued posting (more than 5 times) of excerpts of a rumor article written in a tabloid, which were deleted by me and also by wiki administrators. The user who posted the original article and I are not on good terms, hence contributions and creation of the wiki article on me was never approved by me - see my notes on my desired removal of this article and requesting removal of any wiki presence from the site.

And you've changed your position quite a bit from your original posting and contributions to Wiki - which are all on permanant record. Also, by editing your Talk page to limit the conversation to what you want to be on this page is a weak attempt at trying to make this entire thread/issue resolution history look like self promotion was the issue is also not going to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It is clear, you posted things that were not to be posted, in violation of wiki policies.

Please respond to the direct question: Will you call me, we can say brief hello, exchange some comments on this issue, which will be very amicable, and, indeed, if we can chat live on this subject, I can then put to rest, my grave concern one way or the other about the belief that I know who you are and that it is historical events that have given you a strong bias.

Worth a Read

Reordering/deletion of the historical conversation on your talk page is a transparent attempt to redirect wiki users and administrators attention to yet another false claim about sock puppeting. Amazing. Notice to other wiki users: Please review ALL of Rwilco201 's contributions, here [[1]] all comments on his talk page here [[2]]. It is important to note the sequence of these comments.

Since it is sadly apparent that you have no intention of stepping up and proving that you are in fact not the person I suspect with a historical event based bias, then it might help you to spend some time reviewing the liability here [[3]] associated with your actions on this site, starting with you very first few posts that started your wiki career here [[4]] and here [[5]] and with your other locations on the web to promote this article so clearly outside the realm of acceptable on Wikipedia.

If you are, in fact NOT the person I believe you to be, then please accept my apologies for asserting that you are someone I know very well. Mitchthrower 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Your userpage appeasrs to be a copy of the article Mitch Thrower. This may be out of line with userpage guidlines. See Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages for more detail. Consider removing this from your user page, or it may be nominated for deletion. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC) See note above "The full article is posted on my talk page for anyone's reference - note that I quoted from Mitch himself for the article." - Mitch's page cited as a response to his emailed. Edited per your request, but I respectfully disagree.