(no time stamp so not archived by werdnabot)
Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the Sathya Sai arbitration. I have added new evidence and updated the workshop. I should have responded earlier but I was very busy with some personal issues. I request you to look at the new evidence and give me a fair trial. Thanks. [User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 26th February 2007
Thank you very much, I need all the help I can get, I am a slow learner. Take good care in the meantime. Bhaktivinode March 27, 2007
As I am new to the wiki culture - as you can tell... I noticed that the John Machemehl article has now passed its 5 days of debate. Do one of us need to close it? Does it need to be an administrator? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks and take care. Bhaktivinode 2 April 200
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!
1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)
2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.
3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?
4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?
5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)
Now just one suggestion:
1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you've voted in behalf of a revert parole for Yueyuen. Unfortunately, you have not indicated any finding of fact (such as edit warring), which might prevent the case from closing. This issue was specifically pointed out by Paul August in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close. Could you do something about it? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to me if you would explain why you voted to decline, so that I will have an idea about how I am still falling short of expectations and what I can do to get there. Everyking 07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Other than being warned by ArbCom in his previous arbcom case (about misuse of admin tools) Zero has also been specifically warned by 2 admins not to take action against me. Once by Slim Virgin and once by Fred himself who suggested to him not to use ban as first measure against me and if he thinks there is a problem with my editing Fred told Zero to ask for help. (at that time Fred did not accpted Zero's claim about my edits)
There are few more admins who gave Zero such answer (Jayjg explained to him that my request for mediation is not an excuse to ban me) and Tom Harrison asked him to stop making PA against me.
These are all in the evidence however they were not interduced into the proposed decision. (like many other facts which are in the evidence) Don't you think this is highly relevent to this case ? How can I make sure the evidence is considered? I will accept any verdict as long as the process is fair. Zeq 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (PS I will have to accept it even if it is not fair:-)
few more links: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
sorry for taking more of your time. Zeq 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the edit history for that talk page? The logical person to deal with this is probably User:Sjakkalle but it looks from his talk page like he's on wikibreak. See also the notes at User_talk:SusanPolgar and User_talk:Linnell. Thanks. 75.62.6.237 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm about to file a Request for Comments on Big Sister (brothel) and would like to solicit your position statement on Talk:Big Sister (brothel). Thanks, AxelBoldt 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I opened an item on WP:AN/I and would appreciate your comments. [9] Sparkzilla 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have left a message for you at user talk:JzG. -- SockingIt 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Ms McGuire was recorded on audio and video offering sex for money and how that is not relevant to the main article is beyond me, let alone the talk page. Perhaps you would like to explain it to me? I would be grateful. I think you're mising the point of Wikipedia entirely in this instance (i.e. fluffiness and censorship) and I'm looking for other opinions from administrators on this matter as I don't think you are clear on this one for whatever reason.
Please advise.
-- Magpie1892 8 Jun 2007 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? ATren 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
FloNight - I'm extremely sorry that the first message of the NewYear on your user talk has to be something of this nature, however I need to ask a seasoned admin a few procedural questions regarding a suspected sockpuppetry case that I have opened. In short form, the suspected puppet is claiming that the puppetmaster page does NOT belong to him / her, and has tagged it for deletion. As this page is source reference for evidence, its deletion prior to the acceptance, check and / or resolution of the sockpuppetry inquiry would, in my humble opinion, seem to negate the whole SOCKS issue. What should be done? Edit Centric ( talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, removing it was correct. As for putting the issue to bed...good luck :-) I'll email you more thoughts about this later today. By the way, thanks for you help dealing with this. Take care, FloNight ( talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I was following the request of admin User:A. B. as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman and noticed social engineering on Talk:Knol. I do not know if I went at it the right way by bringing the matter to arbitration committee, but we should not be calling other editors Trolls, or any other labels, and I do not want to say them here or any other places! So as you can see my grievances are not about the revert of the edit, but about the admin derogative abuse of a junior editor. Igor Berger ( talk) 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't already, I suggest you try to catch the film Trois Couleurs: Bleu which features it in a chorus. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-01 t21:47z
I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.-- MONGO 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Chemistry-stub.png | As a regular contributor to
Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is
Prion. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! |
NCurse work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flo, may I note tha ther is a substantive differnce between "1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying."(emphasis added) and "1) Should Jim62sch make any comment of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature,..."? •Jim62sch• 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a discussion ongoing on at [10] regarding Wikisource and the public domain. If you have any comments, they could be helpful. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! You had a good Christmas and New Year?? hope things were well and good!
I've just been participating in the workshop at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia and have made some suggestions, which, you can feel free to give some feedback on.
Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See question on closing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [11]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, I'm still conducting a conversation about the proposed ruling. If you have an issue with specific editors, please work it out with them but don't close off discussion of an ongoing case totally, thanks. RxS ( talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think protection was a good idea (even though as admins more than a few of the involved parties can still edit it). The conversations taking place were serving no appreciable purpose, and it was inflaming the dispute on which the case revolves. I had thought to take it tp RPPP, but I figured they'd turn it down out of deference to the Committee. Avruch talk 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: this edit note, I make the requested promise. Durova Charge! 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Flonight, I think protecting the talk page is going too far - maybe for a day, but not for 6 days or until the case closes. There are people who will want to make relevant and helpful comments, and will be able to restrain themselves. Protecting the talk page merely disenfranchises them. If any particular editors are being disruptive, warn and then block them. Do you really want people to be reduced to putting {{ edit protected}} on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision? Is there even an accepted place to put 'edit protected' requests for protected talk page? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, the undersigned (both involved and uninvolved) agree to make productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors, and hereby ask FloNight to please unprotect the page to allow civil discussion to continue.
Because it's probably the right thing to do, I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties can behave themselves. If not, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced with blocks, as described in the warning I put at the top of the workshop when the case opened. For a while it looked like that warning was premature, then things started to go down hill. It's not too late to pull out of the death spiral that so many tendentious Arbcom cases seem to get in to when they've been open a long time. Thatcher 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted this on the main IRC page. There is a fundamental problem with the entire weight of the proposed decision that no one has addressed yet. I posted it there as the talk page is locked. If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. Lawrence Cohen 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no previous findings or remedies in arbitration cases involving me related to incivility or personal attacks. This is the first time the matter has been raised at arbitration. -- Tony Sidaway 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[12] Bishonen | talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC).
I know its late, but I offer some new thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision_by_Thatcher. Thatcher 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Should it be uninvolved admins? Lawrence § t/ e 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This looks like an unintended duplication of the page content, or something. -- Tony Sidaway 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We were wondering why the Committee has been mostly silent about this case? Also, when do you believe that this case will be moved to voting? Thanks. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
I agree on this (early on in the case I suggested a civility parole and my opinion hasn't changed). Having findings but no parole in this particular case would make it rather more difficult for me. I suspect that this remedy, passed visibly, would also make an end to this affair more likely. -- Tony Sidaway 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree this was the right thing to do accepting this case. If I did something like he was alleged to have done, I'd probably be de-sysopped and/or blocked/banned.
However, on mu userpage, I've declared that I have a friend who edits from this IP address (albeit not very often!) - and since you're a Checkuser, you can indeed verify that! However, as is said, Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust.
Anyway... how's things?? -- Solumeiras ( talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
...I don't think you really intended to write "I have always...discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of civility between users". [14] -- Tony Sidaway 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the committee reaching consensus on who, precisely, this is addressed to, and a form of words that identifies them (this would of course include me because without my initial act of gross incivility this case would not have arisen). The words might be exclusive ("All parties" -> "User:A, User:B, User:C,..., and User:Z are strongly cautioned") or inclusive ("All parties" -> "All parties, especially User:A, User:B..."), whichever satisfies the committee best, but I do think a more specific remedy have more teeth, by making it plain exactly who the committee has its eyes on. -- Tony Sidaway 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment here. Could I ask you what you think about the role played by the other parties that joined the edit war? Specifically the people involved in the edit war laid out here? By the time you get to AzaToth's revert, it should have been clear to everyone that continued reversion was not productive. So my question is why did AzaToth, David Gerard, Betacommand, Irpen (joining Geogre and Giano) and Ryulong join in? Did they really think they were helping to calm the situation down? Part of the reason editors develop problematic conduct issues over several years is that they are not told early on what is and is not acceptable. Would you agree that a message needs to be sent that prolonging and continuing an edit war is never acceptable, and that people really should check the page history to see if there is an ongoing edit war? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Wikipedia. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Wikipedia. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Wikipedia culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.
Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his essay - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to WP:AE that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. Risker ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your dress, though. -- Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding. Everyking ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer this question? Because this is a little ambiguous. -- Irpen 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? -- Irpen 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. -- Irpen 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest another editor and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective. [15] I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best, Risker ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And did past real or paper attempts to clean up the channel taken under the same cover of secrecy ever bring anything? Remember the over a year ago post by Fred to ANI that "arbcom finds unacceptable" bla-bla-bla thus appointing channel guards? And what? One of the "guards" was no one else but David Gerard!
Not surprisingly the attempt of correction taken within the same secrecy framework did not change much and the rampant IRC abuse went on for another year with the discussions occasionally arising onwiki. This culminated in the latest IRC case and so much bru-ha-ha and just when the case was closing and some were trying to claim that IRC learned the lesson this kicked right in. I have not heard either from Moreschi or from Dmcdevit, neither an explanation nor an apology after my request. Neither I've heard of their being sanctioned. And who would sanction them? Dmc is a chanellop himself! The only reaction to my request was that my post itself was immediately discussed (within minutes after I posted it and, yes, at the very same channel). Interestingly, the main subject of that discussion whose participants know who they are was the "leak" rather than the abuse itslef.
And, btw, another channelop (Mackenesen) whose duty is supposedly to investigate the incident upon learning about it was at the channel during the discussion. So, he learned of the incident and did nothing but more talk. Again, no investigation, no sanctions and no attempt to contact me. So, it is same usual. Abuse continues, some members of establishment take part in it and others in the establishment mildly disapprove and say "A" but never saying "B". And now with this new "update" things would change for better all of a sudden. Sigh.
"Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?" indeed, Giano. -- Irpen 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Flo, you seem to not understand what took place in the incident in question if you suggest contacting no one else but Dmc in order to address it. Dmc was complicit in the affair and now you suggest that he is the proper person to decide upon the actions?
And the next day Mackensen knew about it too. As soon as I asked Moreschi to explain oneself the very next minute (literally) Ryan posted the diff to #admins which started a discussion. You think the discussion was about the abhorrent behavior of Moreschi and Dmc? Not very much. Mostly it was about the "leaks". ("<Ryanpostlethwait> honestly guys, who keeps passing logs out of this channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Your_conduct_at_.23admins")
And Mackensen was online during that discussion. Did it help? We had already two level-30 channelops aware of the situation and one of the two actually made it happen. Within 3 days or so, more channelops became aware and still nothing. When Mackenses found out, he just asked around a little but was not too persistent and did not attempt to contact me or anyone else. If he chose to not act on it or inform me, I have to say that the system remains broken.
I found this out by pure accident. I have no certainty that it does not go on. And Mackensen and other ops being made aware of the incident had a duty to act without my further urging anyone. There has been enough time by now.
This whole thing of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such things as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, Mackensen had to act vigilantly upon it after finding something out even purely by accident through being at the channel when Ryan posted the diff. Otherwise, it is all meanigless.
Same with checkuser: If checkuser logs are only available to checkusers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit enquiry, and therefore there is no public liason function for the ombudsman to perform.
Whoever is entasked with enforcing the rules over something where the logs are closed, has to do so pro-actively. Otherwise, it is a meaningless function since the logs are considered private
And last but not least, I am by far more concerned by the conversation itself being held behind my back by the sneaky folk than by the word "bastard" which does not worry me on its own, as I have seen worse and I know too well about the manners, faith and intellectual honesty in those quarters. I also know what they think of myself and it does not bother me too much.
And now the claim that everything is "fixed" is being made again. And how is it fixed? It is fixed by modifying the guidelines "through a discussion". And what discussion? The discussion at... #admins. Ironic, isn't it? -- Irpen 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Flo but there is much more to it.
First, suppose that I did not know about this incident and did not ask anything from anyone. Would anything have happened at all? See above about the impossibility of real oversight if its function is given to the regulars of the channel with the sikret logs.
Next, by accident the channelop already knew that something happened from my post at the Moreschi's talk. Still nothing for the whole month.
Next, how are we supposed to believe that something changes this time as the "change" was discussed only by the channel's regulars? Mackensen, on the channel the next day, asked whether anyone can provide him a log. No one was willing to. Did he ask me? No.
And if, I am speaking hypothetically now, you and FT2 take this particular incident close to heart, pursue it to the end and expunge Moreschi from #admins and Dmcdevit from both #admins and Arbcom-L, where he should not be in the first place, how do we know that next time this would be addressed by the existing system? Why can't this plague be dealt in an honest and transparent way and by the community who this concerns directly. How many more times the IRCers would be telling us that everything is finally "all right". How many more editors like Giano, Bishonen and Ghirla are to be expunged? -- Irpen 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately your summary of the incident is a pity one. I have also seen the log and saying that Dmc's role was "restraining" one is a big stretch. He was no less (IMO more) insulting even if he did not use such rude words.
But never mind, Mackensen, there was no hope on my end that the secret procedures can be successful in tackling the secret wrongdoing. And I did not hope that you would do anything either from seeing you in the past.
This is just an additional demonstration that the system based on the assumption of good ombudsmanship of chanops themselves does not work and cannot work. And past years demonstrated that any attempts of reform failed to bring a meaningful change when the reforms were undertaken within the same secrecy framework where the wrongdoing lies. Reform proposed and discussed secretly behind the closed doors by selected few who has been on the channel all this time does not and won't look credible. -- Irpen 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I did not have much expectation that you would handle the incident properly. You said above what actions you took and what conclusions you made. And wasn't I right?
As for my "faith" in general, please do not put words in my mouth. I have no faith that the problem of secretive wrongdoing can be tackled by secretive means. This is the only thing that I've said. Nothing about "faith in the process" in general. I have a great faith that the problem can be addressed if "grappled" in an open and transparent way. Note that this latest claim is made that the "consensus" that will "fix" #admins has been achieved through a "discussion" at ...#admins.
Note how many past attempts to deal with the complicity through open means have bean thwarted and guess why we are still there. As usually, of course, someone is now saying (again) that this time the situation is finally under control. Remember the Fred's announcement -teen months ago? Remember Arbcom's pronouncement one month ago? Right! Exactly when Moreschi and Dmc had that beautiful discussion. -- Irpen 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel. Please reply as soon as possible. To the nearest ten will do. Also could you explain precisely what changes have been implemented following the case and your declared intention to change the way the channel operated. Thanks. Giano ( talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) See above, it's answered. FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I. Old decisions on channel access have more or less been "grandfathered" in; the issue of non-admin access is shelved by common agreement by and large, at the moment. The user list is available, and linked above, and you have access to it as does anybody who wishes, to check the issues that you feel matter.
Changes have also been described too (also linked above). Please see the above links. Whilst there is a learning curve on it, the intentions and critieria are good ones and what Ive seen, have broad support and the possibility to help in the few cases where a problem might not have been handled as well before. Of course nothing's perfect, so it goes without saying there will be issues, but broadly I've reviewed a number of the last 9 months' incidents and found quite often the reported incidents were frequently misreported in respect of accuracy, completeness, or neutral description.
As examples of changes that you might consider important: this is the first time it has been explicitly stated that IRC is there specifically to support the wiki (anti-divergence measure, learning from Ezperanaza)... that some decisions cannot just be made on whim but must have multiple review... the handling of certain on-channel incidents to reduce over-reaction... the ruling out of certain other actions to reduce abuse... clear delineation on core standards expected... who and how to appeal chanel op abuse or have a problem reviewed if there is a concern... etc. These are all newly agreed, and have strong support. What will be best is to find that they help in the exceptional cases they were designed for, for the rest of the year.
Finally, note this is an internal channel guide. It is an agreement between irc users of mutual expectations on the channel. As such it is not an on-wiki matter, nor a matter for users who don't use IRC. As the saying goes, what happens off wiki is not consensus for what happens on-wiki. That en-admins has an internal agreement does not per se affect, supersede, or change on-wiki matters. Actions by admins and non-admins on-wiki are still down to individual admins decisions and accountability. What has been done is to clarify and in a way, codify, that there is a clear understanding in the channel too, of major areas of usage and approach, and what some of those are. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That above is just so outrageous that I cannot reply in few words. But for now a quick remark on the last sentence:
Not true. Do we need to go to a specific detail? We can if this is denied. And this non-truth makes debunking the rest simply redundant. -- Irpen 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what is precisely being discussed, but if it involves putting together a group (work/discussion/coffee tasting/whatever) regarding #Admins then I would like to confirm that I am still keen to participate. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats ( user:Kubura, user:Zenanarth, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks.-- Marygiove ( talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed a "not". [16] — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me ( here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [17]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [18]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [19]. Regards PHG ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please view
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues.
PHG (
talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that a slight typo in your edit over at RFARB? I didn't know our policies were living and had biographies? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you have ignored me on IRC. You probably will ignore this. I will take it as such unless you respond to this. I am very tired of some arbitrators non-responsiveness.
Simpler things (like a checkuser and subsequent indefinite block) and two arbitration cases among other things have been unsuccessful in resolving this problem. Hence the case.
The harassment have been ongoing since before you registered your account.
-- Cat chi? 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight -- Welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member. :) I browsed The Hunt-Morgan House, an article in your recent contributions. It's a nice article. However I got puzzled by how it could have a NPS webpage yet not have a NRHP REFNUM. I suspect there is something general that I do not understand and I have posted a question about it in the Talk page of NRHP, referring to this article. Hope you don't mind. Please feel free to chime in there, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#The Hunt-Morgan House: perhaps a Contributing Propery, how handle it?, if you like, too. And welcome again. cheers, doncram ( talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Was told you were the one that should have a look at this from Tony Sidaway (now calling himself Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The). He calls a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" in an edit summary, and then "plays dumb" as to why that could have been offensive. Bellwether B C 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking my user name (at least i think it was you) anyway, you have been so helpful that i wanted to ask you about something. If you have time (and im sure ur busy) would you go to Asia and Europe the population counts are inacurate. For example, it says that European Russia is 142 million people. European russia is actually 100 million, asian russia (siberia) is approx 42 million in population. The Asia article says that Asian Egypt (sinai desert) has 80 million people. Well, the entire country of egypt has 80 million people. The AFRICAN part has about 80 million the asian sinai has only about 1 million people. Plus, the population counts are all from 2002 when there are 2007 population counts available (such as if you click the actual country link itself, it gives a higher population.)
Here's my problem. I am very new to wikipedia and do not know how to edit the colorful sections that list the populations. How do you do that? Or, better yet (since youre an administrator, maybe you could help me (:) i'll give you the links to prove the real population counts if you can edit it for me. It's up to you. Well, thanks. Could you maybe respond on my user page instead of your own, if that's okay. Well, thanks. If you don't want any part of this assignment, just say so. I'll ask someone more interested in that particular subject. Mayday2010 ( talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG ( talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Flo, you clearly have your head screwed on - excellent comments and much appreciated. [20] Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Flo, I would just like to draw your attention to my post here, which are regarding the Betacommand and editors urged proposal currently under consideration at the case's proposed decision. Thanks and regards, Anthøny 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight,
Since you blocked this user previously, I wanted to let you know that the user is back, and doing the same thing. I've just posted details at AN/I. Best wishes, Jakew ( talk) 11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I am grateful for your lengthy reply to my post. Would you be willing to discuss all 10 Proposed principles I submitted? I think it can really help us if the ArbCom rules on them, pro or con. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that you follow the participants in 'the Troubles' from a distance, including myself, but I should be grateful if I could please draw your attention to this case. Arising out of a discussion on Alison's Talk page, User talk:Alison#Charades and a bal masqué, Counter-revolutionary was subsequently blocked here: User talk:Counter-revolutionary#Blocked. You will see that I have commented at the end of that latter discussion, and those comments broadly set out my position.
Subsequently, I have returned to both Admins involved in this block with requests for further information concerning the Check-user evidence - what a lawyer would call the forensic evidence - which seems to me to be both (a) the only evidence against this editor; and, (b) rather scanty at that. You can see my requests here: User talk:Alison#The block on Counter-revolutionary and User talk:WJBscribe#Your block of Counter-revolutionary, and you will also note that they have both been ignored.
Under the circumstances, please can you have a look at this case. It appears that Counter-revolutionary did intend to petition regarding his own unblock, but did not use the {{unblock|Your reason}} template (which, I suppose, would have brought in a neutral Admin to review the whole situation).
As always, thank you for your time and help in this matter. Major Bonkers (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. At the risk of being obtuse, please could I just ask a couple of questions to get to the nub of this:
Sorry to come back to you, and thank you very much for your prompt response. Major Bonkers (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to come back, yet again, on this issue. I can recognise that I'm flogging a dead horse but despite that I think that it is important to set out what ought to be some basic principles.
When these sort of allegations are raised against a long-standing contributor, which are so obviously out of character, I would consider it reasonable to raise the issue with him first rather than reach instinctively for the 'ban-hamma'. In this case, 'confirmed by check-user' actually means that the check-user links between the accounts is no better than 'likely', and is based (a) on geographical proximity and (b) on temporal lack of proximity; ie. the known and the vandal's accounts were not editing simultaneously. (I just pause here to point out that in this separate case, entirely the opposite view was taken; editing at the same time is evidence of 'sock-puppetry'.) Similarly, corroborated by a number of independent checkusers simply means that the original dubious results have been replicated.
I'm not at all sure that you have actually reviewed what Counter-revolutionary has posted as an 'appeal' on his Talk page. In your response, on Alison's Talk page and immediately above, you do not refer to it all, simply to his contributions and the check-user. As I read it, rather than dealing with his appeal from the original block and the evidence upon which it was based, you have actually disregarded all that and instead come up with another, separate, reason for blocking him.
I am also disturbed by references to your notes and other correspondence with Admins; there is clearly no way that any editor can formulate a response when the evidence against him is kept secret, his responses are not listened to, and there's a whole discussion, which he's not privy to, going on in the background. I am prepared to accept that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but on the other hand it is surely desirable that these banning decisions are seen to be demonstrably fair; unfortunately, in a way that the present case clearly isn't.
Is it possible, please, for some brief explanation of why the vandal account seems to have caused such offense to be given? Again, from what I can see, two of these edits seem par for the course: I have seen much worse, and can provide the diffs to demonstrate, being posted by other editors under their own names. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you stop messing about and tell us all exactly what the fantastic levels of abuse amount to in real terms. Is there a problem with User:David Lauder's and/or User:Counter-revolutionary's serious and many contributions to the project? Yes or no. If the contributions are OK, why not outline how and/or who they have actually abused, as said in real terms. Because abuse is a strong word. If its just procedural or they broke rules they may not have been fully aware of, why not say so? In addition, you might explain to us all how and why they were 'targetted' if their article contributions were satisfactory. Was someone stalking them? Is that not a form of abuse in itself? Given that User:Vintagekits has been blocked over 20 times for fairly serious WP 'crimes' and given that User:GianoII has been blocked a staggering 45 times [23] it falls to arbcom to have the decency to explain just what has happened which makes absolute throttling bans on DL and C-R so utterly essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Instead of being arrogant why not answer the questions as put? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 ( talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(no time stamp so not archived by werdnabot)
Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the Sathya Sai arbitration. I have added new evidence and updated the workshop. I should have responded earlier but I was very busy with some personal issues. I request you to look at the new evidence and give me a fair trial. Thanks. [User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 26th February 2007
Thank you very much, I need all the help I can get, I am a slow learner. Take good care in the meantime. Bhaktivinode March 27, 2007
As I am new to the wiki culture - as you can tell... I noticed that the John Machemehl article has now passed its 5 days of debate. Do one of us need to close it? Does it need to be an administrator? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks and take care. Bhaktivinode 2 April 200
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!
1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)
2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.
3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?
4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?
5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)
Now just one suggestion:
1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you've voted in behalf of a revert parole for Yueyuen. Unfortunately, you have not indicated any finding of fact (such as edit warring), which might prevent the case from closing. This issue was specifically pointed out by Paul August in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close. Could you do something about it? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to me if you would explain why you voted to decline, so that I will have an idea about how I am still falling short of expectations and what I can do to get there. Everyking 07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Other than being warned by ArbCom in his previous arbcom case (about misuse of admin tools) Zero has also been specifically warned by 2 admins not to take action against me. Once by Slim Virgin and once by Fred himself who suggested to him not to use ban as first measure against me and if he thinks there is a problem with my editing Fred told Zero to ask for help. (at that time Fred did not accpted Zero's claim about my edits)
There are few more admins who gave Zero such answer (Jayjg explained to him that my request for mediation is not an excuse to ban me) and Tom Harrison asked him to stop making PA against me.
These are all in the evidence however they were not interduced into the proposed decision. (like many other facts which are in the evidence) Don't you think this is highly relevent to this case ? How can I make sure the evidence is considered? I will accept any verdict as long as the process is fair. Zeq 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (PS I will have to accept it even if it is not fair:-)
few more links: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
sorry for taking more of your time. Zeq 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the edit history for that talk page? The logical person to deal with this is probably User:Sjakkalle but it looks from his talk page like he's on wikibreak. See also the notes at User_talk:SusanPolgar and User_talk:Linnell. Thanks. 75.62.6.237 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm about to file a Request for Comments on Big Sister (brothel) and would like to solicit your position statement on Talk:Big Sister (brothel). Thanks, AxelBoldt 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I opened an item on WP:AN/I and would appreciate your comments. [9] Sparkzilla 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have left a message for you at user talk:JzG. -- SockingIt 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Ms McGuire was recorded on audio and video offering sex for money and how that is not relevant to the main article is beyond me, let alone the talk page. Perhaps you would like to explain it to me? I would be grateful. I think you're mising the point of Wikipedia entirely in this instance (i.e. fluffiness and censorship) and I'm looking for other opinions from administrators on this matter as I don't think you are clear on this one for whatever reason.
Please advise.
-- Magpie1892 8 Jun 2007 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? ATren 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
FloNight - I'm extremely sorry that the first message of the NewYear on your user talk has to be something of this nature, however I need to ask a seasoned admin a few procedural questions regarding a suspected sockpuppetry case that I have opened. In short form, the suspected puppet is claiming that the puppetmaster page does NOT belong to him / her, and has tagged it for deletion. As this page is source reference for evidence, its deletion prior to the acceptance, check and / or resolution of the sockpuppetry inquiry would, in my humble opinion, seem to negate the whole SOCKS issue. What should be done? Edit Centric ( talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, removing it was correct. As for putting the issue to bed...good luck :-) I'll email you more thoughts about this later today. By the way, thanks for you help dealing with this. Take care, FloNight ( talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I was following the request of admin User:A. B. as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman and noticed social engineering on Talk:Knol. I do not know if I went at it the right way by bringing the matter to arbitration committee, but we should not be calling other editors Trolls, or any other labels, and I do not want to say them here or any other places! So as you can see my grievances are not about the revert of the edit, but about the admin derogative abuse of a junior editor. Igor Berger ( talk) 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If you haven't already, I suggest you try to catch the film Trois Couleurs: Bleu which features it in a chorus. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-01 t21:47z
I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.-- MONGO 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
File:Chemistry-stub.png | As a regular contributor to
Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is
Prion. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! |
NCurse work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flo, may I note tha ther is a substantive differnce between "1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying."(emphasis added) and "1) Should Jim62sch make any comment of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature,..."? •Jim62sch• 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. There is a discussion ongoing on at [10] regarding Wikisource and the public domain. If you have any comments, they could be helpful. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! You had a good Christmas and New Year?? hope things were well and good!
I've just been participating in the workshop at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia and have made some suggestions, which, you can feel free to give some feedback on.
Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See question on closing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [11]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, I'm still conducting a conversation about the proposed ruling. If you have an issue with specific editors, please work it out with them but don't close off discussion of an ongoing case totally, thanks. RxS ( talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think protection was a good idea (even though as admins more than a few of the involved parties can still edit it). The conversations taking place were serving no appreciable purpose, and it was inflaming the dispute on which the case revolves. I had thought to take it tp RPPP, but I figured they'd turn it down out of deference to the Committee. Avruch talk 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: this edit note, I make the requested promise. Durova Charge! 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Flonight, I think protecting the talk page is going too far - maybe for a day, but not for 6 days or until the case closes. There are people who will want to make relevant and helpful comments, and will be able to restrain themselves. Protecting the talk page merely disenfranchises them. If any particular editors are being disruptive, warn and then block them. Do you really want people to be reduced to putting {{ edit protected}} on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision? Is there even an accepted place to put 'edit protected' requests for protected talk page? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, the undersigned (both involved and uninvolved) agree to make productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors, and hereby ask FloNight to please unprotect the page to allow civil discussion to continue.
Because it's probably the right thing to do, I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties can behave themselves. If not, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced with blocks, as described in the warning I put at the top of the workshop when the case opened. For a while it looked like that warning was premature, then things started to go down hill. It's not too late to pull out of the death spiral that so many tendentious Arbcom cases seem to get in to when they've been open a long time. Thatcher 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I posted this on the main IRC page. There is a fundamental problem with the entire weight of the proposed decision that no one has addressed yet. I posted it there as the talk page is locked. If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. Lawrence Cohen 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 1 • January 19, 2007 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no previous findings or remedies in arbitration cases involving me related to incivility or personal attacks. This is the first time the matter has been raised at arbitration. -- Tony Sidaway 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[12] Bishonen | talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC).
I know its late, but I offer some new thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision_by_Thatcher. Thatcher 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Should it be uninvolved admins? Lawrence § t/ e 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This looks like an unintended duplication of the page content, or something. -- Tony Sidaway 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We were wondering why the Committee has been mostly silent about this case? Also, when do you believe that this case will be moved to voting? Thanks. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
I agree on this (early on in the case I suggested a civility parole and my opinion hasn't changed). Having findings but no parole in this particular case would make it rather more difficult for me. I suspect that this remedy, passed visibly, would also make an end to this affair more likely. -- Tony Sidaway 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I very much agree this was the right thing to do accepting this case. If I did something like he was alleged to have done, I'd probably be de-sysopped and/or blocked/banned.
However, on mu userpage, I've declared that I have a friend who edits from this IP address (albeit not very often!) - and since you're a Checkuser, you can indeed verify that! However, as is said, Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust.
Anyway... how's things?? -- Solumeiras ( talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
...I don't think you really intended to write "I have always...discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of civility between users". [14] -- Tony Sidaway 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the committee reaching consensus on who, precisely, this is addressed to, and a form of words that identifies them (this would of course include me because without my initial act of gross incivility this case would not have arisen). The words might be exclusive ("All parties" -> "User:A, User:B, User:C,..., and User:Z are strongly cautioned") or inclusive ("All parties" -> "All parties, especially User:A, User:B..."), whichever satisfies the committee best, but I do think a more specific remedy have more teeth, by making it plain exactly who the committee has its eyes on. -- Tony Sidaway 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comment here. Could I ask you what you think about the role played by the other parties that joined the edit war? Specifically the people involved in the edit war laid out here? By the time you get to AzaToth's revert, it should have been clear to everyone that continued reversion was not productive. So my question is why did AzaToth, David Gerard, Betacommand, Irpen (joining Geogre and Giano) and Ryulong join in? Did they really think they were helping to calm the situation down? Part of the reason editors develop problematic conduct issues over several years is that they are not told early on what is and is not acceptable. Would you agree that a message needs to be sent that prolonging and continuing an edit war is never acceptable, and that people really should check the page history to see if there is an ongoing edit war? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Wikipedia. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Wikipedia. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Wikipedia culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.
Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his essay - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to WP:AE that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. Risker ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I like your dress, though. -- Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding. Everyking ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 2 • 17 February 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer this question? Because this is a little ambiguous. -- Irpen 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? -- Irpen 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. -- Irpen 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest another editor and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective. [15] I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best, Risker ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And did past real or paper attempts to clean up the channel taken under the same cover of secrecy ever bring anything? Remember the over a year ago post by Fred to ANI that "arbcom finds unacceptable" bla-bla-bla thus appointing channel guards? And what? One of the "guards" was no one else but David Gerard!
Not surprisingly the attempt of correction taken within the same secrecy framework did not change much and the rampant IRC abuse went on for another year with the discussions occasionally arising onwiki. This culminated in the latest IRC case and so much bru-ha-ha and just when the case was closing and some were trying to claim that IRC learned the lesson this kicked right in. I have not heard either from Moreschi or from Dmcdevit, neither an explanation nor an apology after my request. Neither I've heard of their being sanctioned. And who would sanction them? Dmc is a chanellop himself! The only reaction to my request was that my post itself was immediately discussed (within minutes after I posted it and, yes, at the very same channel). Interestingly, the main subject of that discussion whose participants know who they are was the "leak" rather than the abuse itslef.
And, btw, another channelop (Mackenesen) whose duty is supposedly to investigate the incident upon learning about it was at the channel during the discussion. So, he learned of the incident and did nothing but more talk. Again, no investigation, no sanctions and no attempt to contact me. So, it is same usual. Abuse continues, some members of establishment take part in it and others in the establishment mildly disapprove and say "A" but never saying "B". And now with this new "update" things would change for better all of a sudden. Sigh.
"Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?" indeed, Giano. -- Irpen 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Flo, you seem to not understand what took place in the incident in question if you suggest contacting no one else but Dmc in order to address it. Dmc was complicit in the affair and now you suggest that he is the proper person to decide upon the actions?
And the next day Mackensen knew about it too. As soon as I asked Moreschi to explain oneself the very next minute (literally) Ryan posted the diff to #admins which started a discussion. You think the discussion was about the abhorrent behavior of Moreschi and Dmc? Not very much. Mostly it was about the "leaks". ("<Ryanpostlethwait> honestly guys, who keeps passing logs out of this channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Your_conduct_at_.23admins")
And Mackensen was online during that discussion. Did it help? We had already two level-30 channelops aware of the situation and one of the two actually made it happen. Within 3 days or so, more channelops became aware and still nothing. When Mackenses found out, he just asked around a little but was not too persistent and did not attempt to contact me or anyone else. If he chose to not act on it or inform me, I have to say that the system remains broken.
I found this out by pure accident. I have no certainty that it does not go on. And Mackensen and other ops being made aware of the incident had a duty to act without my further urging anyone. There has been enough time by now.
This whole thing of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such things as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, Mackensen had to act vigilantly upon it after finding something out even purely by accident through being at the channel when Ryan posted the diff. Otherwise, it is all meanigless.
Same with checkuser: If checkuser logs are only available to checkusers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit enquiry, and therefore there is no public liason function for the ombudsman to perform.
Whoever is entasked with enforcing the rules over something where the logs are closed, has to do so pro-actively. Otherwise, it is a meaningless function since the logs are considered private
And last but not least, I am by far more concerned by the conversation itself being held behind my back by the sneaky folk than by the word "bastard" which does not worry me on its own, as I have seen worse and I know too well about the manners, faith and intellectual honesty in those quarters. I also know what they think of myself and it does not bother me too much.
And now the claim that everything is "fixed" is being made again. And how is it fixed? It is fixed by modifying the guidelines "through a discussion". And what discussion? The discussion at... #admins. Ironic, isn't it? -- Irpen 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Flo but there is much more to it.
First, suppose that I did not know about this incident and did not ask anything from anyone. Would anything have happened at all? See above about the impossibility of real oversight if its function is given to the regulars of the channel with the sikret logs.
Next, by accident the channelop already knew that something happened from my post at the Moreschi's talk. Still nothing for the whole month.
Next, how are we supposed to believe that something changes this time as the "change" was discussed only by the channel's regulars? Mackensen, on the channel the next day, asked whether anyone can provide him a log. No one was willing to. Did he ask me? No.
And if, I am speaking hypothetically now, you and FT2 take this particular incident close to heart, pursue it to the end and expunge Moreschi from #admins and Dmcdevit from both #admins and Arbcom-L, where he should not be in the first place, how do we know that next time this would be addressed by the existing system? Why can't this plague be dealt in an honest and transparent way and by the community who this concerns directly. How many more times the IRCers would be telling us that everything is finally "all right". How many more editors like Giano, Bishonen and Ghirla are to be expunged? -- Irpen 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately your summary of the incident is a pity one. I have also seen the log and saying that Dmc's role was "restraining" one is a big stretch. He was no less (IMO more) insulting even if he did not use such rude words.
But never mind, Mackensen, there was no hope on my end that the secret procedures can be successful in tackling the secret wrongdoing. And I did not hope that you would do anything either from seeing you in the past.
This is just an additional demonstration that the system based on the assumption of good ombudsmanship of chanops themselves does not work and cannot work. And past years demonstrated that any attempts of reform failed to bring a meaningful change when the reforms were undertaken within the same secrecy framework where the wrongdoing lies. Reform proposed and discussed secretly behind the closed doors by selected few who has been on the channel all this time does not and won't look credible. -- Irpen 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I did not have much expectation that you would handle the incident properly. You said above what actions you took and what conclusions you made. And wasn't I right?
As for my "faith" in general, please do not put words in my mouth. I have no faith that the problem of secretive wrongdoing can be tackled by secretive means. This is the only thing that I've said. Nothing about "faith in the process" in general. I have a great faith that the problem can be addressed if "grappled" in an open and transparent way. Note that this latest claim is made that the "consensus" that will "fix" #admins has been achieved through a "discussion" at ...#admins.
Note how many past attempts to deal with the complicity through open means have bean thwarted and guess why we are still there. As usually, of course, someone is now saying (again) that this time the situation is finally under control. Remember the Fred's announcement -teen months ago? Remember Arbcom's pronouncement one month ago? Right! Exactly when Moreschi and Dmc had that beautiful discussion. -- Irpen 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel. Please reply as soon as possible. To the nearest ten will do. Also could you explain precisely what changes have been implemented following the case and your declared intention to change the way the channel operated. Thanks. Giano ( talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) See above, it's answered. FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I. Old decisions on channel access have more or less been "grandfathered" in; the issue of non-admin access is shelved by common agreement by and large, at the moment. The user list is available, and linked above, and you have access to it as does anybody who wishes, to check the issues that you feel matter.
Changes have also been described too (also linked above). Please see the above links. Whilst there is a learning curve on it, the intentions and critieria are good ones and what Ive seen, have broad support and the possibility to help in the few cases where a problem might not have been handled as well before. Of course nothing's perfect, so it goes without saying there will be issues, but broadly I've reviewed a number of the last 9 months' incidents and found quite often the reported incidents were frequently misreported in respect of accuracy, completeness, or neutral description.
As examples of changes that you might consider important: this is the first time it has been explicitly stated that IRC is there specifically to support the wiki (anti-divergence measure, learning from Ezperanaza)... that some decisions cannot just be made on whim but must have multiple review... the handling of certain on-channel incidents to reduce over-reaction... the ruling out of certain other actions to reduce abuse... clear delineation on core standards expected... who and how to appeal chanel op abuse or have a problem reviewed if there is a concern... etc. These are all newly agreed, and have strong support. What will be best is to find that they help in the exceptional cases they were designed for, for the rest of the year.
Finally, note this is an internal channel guide. It is an agreement between irc users of mutual expectations on the channel. As such it is not an on-wiki matter, nor a matter for users who don't use IRC. As the saying goes, what happens off wiki is not consensus for what happens on-wiki. That en-admins has an internal agreement does not per se affect, supersede, or change on-wiki matters. Actions by admins and non-admins on-wiki are still down to individual admins decisions and accountability. What has been done is to clarify and in a way, codify, that there is a clear understanding in the channel too, of major areas of usage and approach, and what some of those are. FT2 ( Talk | email) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That above is just so outrageous that I cannot reply in few words. But for now a quick remark on the last sentence:
Not true. Do we need to go to a specific detail? We can if this is denied. And this non-truth makes debunking the rest simply redundant. -- Irpen 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what is precisely being discussed, but if it involves putting together a group (work/discussion/coffee tasting/whatever) regarding #Admins then I would like to confirm that I am still keen to participate. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats ( user:Kubura, user:Zenanarth, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks.-- Marygiove ( talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you missed a "not". [16] — Wknight94 ( talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me ( here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [17]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [18]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [19]. Regards PHG ( talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please view
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues.
PHG (
talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that a slight typo in your edit over at RFARB? I didn't know our policies were living and had biographies? :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you have ignored me on IRC. You probably will ignore this. I will take it as such unless you respond to this. I am very tired of some arbitrators non-responsiveness.
Simpler things (like a checkuser and subsequent indefinite block) and two arbitration cases among other things have been unsuccessful in resolving this problem. Hence the case.
The harassment have been ongoing since before you registered your account.
-- Cat chi? 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight -- Welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member. :) I browsed The Hunt-Morgan House, an article in your recent contributions. It's a nice article. However I got puzzled by how it could have a NPS webpage yet not have a NRHP REFNUM. I suspect there is something general that I do not understand and I have posted a question about it in the Talk page of NRHP, referring to this article. Hope you don't mind. Please feel free to chime in there, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#The Hunt-Morgan House: perhaps a Contributing Propery, how handle it?, if you like, too. And welcome again. cheers, doncram ( talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||
Volume 2, Issue 3 • 22 March 2008 • About the Newsletter | ||
|
|
|
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS |
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Was told you were the one that should have a look at this from Tony Sidaway (now calling himself Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The). He calls a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" in an edit summary, and then "plays dumb" as to why that could have been offensive. Bellwether B C 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking my user name (at least i think it was you) anyway, you have been so helpful that i wanted to ask you about something. If you have time (and im sure ur busy) would you go to Asia and Europe the population counts are inacurate. For example, it says that European Russia is 142 million people. European russia is actually 100 million, asian russia (siberia) is approx 42 million in population. The Asia article says that Asian Egypt (sinai desert) has 80 million people. Well, the entire country of egypt has 80 million people. The AFRICAN part has about 80 million the asian sinai has only about 1 million people. Plus, the population counts are all from 2002 when there are 2007 population counts available (such as if you click the actual country link itself, it gives a higher population.)
Here's my problem. I am very new to wikipedia and do not know how to edit the colorful sections that list the populations. How do you do that? Or, better yet (since youre an administrator, maybe you could help me (:) i'll give you the links to prove the real population counts if you can edit it for me. It's up to you. Well, thanks. Could you maybe respond on my user page instead of your own, if that's okay. Well, thanks. If you don't want any part of this assignment, just say so. I'll ask someone more interested in that particular subject. Mayday2010 ( talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG ( talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Flo, you clearly have your head screwed on - excellent comments and much appreciated. [20] Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Flo, I would just like to draw your attention to my post here, which are regarding the Betacommand and editors urged proposal currently under consideration at the case's proposed decision. Thanks and regards, Anthøny 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi FloNight,
Since you blocked this user previously, I wanted to let you know that the user is back, and doing the same thing. I've just posted details at AN/I. Best wishes, Jakew ( talk) 11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I am grateful for your lengthy reply to my post. Would you be willing to discuss all 10 Proposed principles I submitted? I think it can really help us if the ArbCom rules on them, pro or con. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that you follow the participants in 'the Troubles' from a distance, including myself, but I should be grateful if I could please draw your attention to this case. Arising out of a discussion on Alison's Talk page, User talk:Alison#Charades and a bal masqué, Counter-revolutionary was subsequently blocked here: User talk:Counter-revolutionary#Blocked. You will see that I have commented at the end of that latter discussion, and those comments broadly set out my position.
Subsequently, I have returned to both Admins involved in this block with requests for further information concerning the Check-user evidence - what a lawyer would call the forensic evidence - which seems to me to be both (a) the only evidence against this editor; and, (b) rather scanty at that. You can see my requests here: User talk:Alison#The block on Counter-revolutionary and User talk:WJBscribe#Your block of Counter-revolutionary, and you will also note that they have both been ignored.
Under the circumstances, please can you have a look at this case. It appears that Counter-revolutionary did intend to petition regarding his own unblock, but did not use the {{unblock|Your reason}} template (which, I suppose, would have brought in a neutral Admin to review the whole situation).
As always, thank you for your time and help in this matter. Major Bonkers (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. At the risk of being obtuse, please could I just ask a couple of questions to get to the nub of this:
Sorry to come back to you, and thank you very much for your prompt response. Major Bonkers (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to come back, yet again, on this issue. I can recognise that I'm flogging a dead horse but despite that I think that it is important to set out what ought to be some basic principles.
When these sort of allegations are raised against a long-standing contributor, which are so obviously out of character, I would consider it reasonable to raise the issue with him first rather than reach instinctively for the 'ban-hamma'. In this case, 'confirmed by check-user' actually means that the check-user links between the accounts is no better than 'likely', and is based (a) on geographical proximity and (b) on temporal lack of proximity; ie. the known and the vandal's accounts were not editing simultaneously. (I just pause here to point out that in this separate case, entirely the opposite view was taken; editing at the same time is evidence of 'sock-puppetry'.) Similarly, corroborated by a number of independent checkusers simply means that the original dubious results have been replicated.
I'm not at all sure that you have actually reviewed what Counter-revolutionary has posted as an 'appeal' on his Talk page. In your response, on Alison's Talk page and immediately above, you do not refer to it all, simply to his contributions and the check-user. As I read it, rather than dealing with his appeal from the original block and the evidence upon which it was based, you have actually disregarded all that and instead come up with another, separate, reason for blocking him.
I am also disturbed by references to your notes and other correspondence with Admins; there is clearly no way that any editor can formulate a response when the evidence against him is kept secret, his responses are not listened to, and there's a whole discussion, which he's not privy to, going on in the background. I am prepared to accept that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but on the other hand it is surely desirable that these banning decisions are seen to be demonstrably fair; unfortunately, in a way that the present case clearly isn't.
Is it possible, please, for some brief explanation of why the vandal account seems to have caused such offense to be given? Again, from what I can see, two of these edits seem par for the course: I have seen much worse, and can provide the diffs to demonstrate, being posted by other editors under their own names. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you stop messing about and tell us all exactly what the fantastic levels of abuse amount to in real terms. Is there a problem with User:David Lauder's and/or User:Counter-revolutionary's serious and many contributions to the project? Yes or no. If the contributions are OK, why not outline how and/or who they have actually abused, as said in real terms. Because abuse is a strong word. If its just procedural or they broke rules they may not have been fully aware of, why not say so? In addition, you might explain to us all how and why they were 'targetted' if their article contributions were satisfactory. Was someone stalking them? Is that not a form of abuse in itself? Given that User:Vintagekits has been blocked over 20 times for fairly serious WP 'crimes' and given that User:GianoII has been blocked a staggering 45 times [23] it falls to arbcom to have the decency to explain just what has happened which makes absolute throttling bans on DL and C-R so utterly essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 ( talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Instead of being arrogant why not answer the questions as put? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 ( talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)