A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 ( talk) 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

While you're on your break, thank you for your work for Wikipedia. I hope things work out well for you. -- TS 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,   Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Welcome back — I'm sorry that I'm dropping in so soon after your break, but time presses. I noticed that you had resumed editing, and I'm here to encourage you to un-withdraw from the WMC/Abd arbitration case, seeing as the proposed decision staged has dragged on right through your time away. While I'm normally strongly opposed to last-minute changes to arbitration case panels (and have noted so explicitly at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision), I feel that this is a special circumstance. For one thing, you were involved in the case throughout its duration, up to the point of proposing and voting on several of the case findings — you wouldn't be coming at the matter 'cold'. For another, Vassyana's sudden (to those of us on enwiki, at least) appearance so soon before close may seriously alter the remedies adopted; I feel that your resumed participation would balance somewhat the irregularity of his actions.

I realize that I've dropped a lot of stuff on the Committee in a short time, and I'll be leaving sometime tomorrow for a long weekend, so I won't even be here to suffer through the mess I'm likely to cause. I apologize for explicitly making an attempt to drag you back in, but I hope that your participation will encourage the Committee to follow through with my request to resolve the choice of conflicting remedies in a transparent manner. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry but currently real life stuff is still making it difficult for me to direct my attention on ArbCom matters with the level detail needed for me to return to being active on cases. But I'll remind the Committee to review your comments before they close the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The rfc you commented on was added by User:Dak as an ip while avoiding a block. I've removed the rfc and your comment. If you wish you are welcome to replace. Vsmith ( talk) 19:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I noticed and blocked his next account. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear FloNight,

It was a pleasure to meet, eat and converse with you and your husband at the Nashville meetup. This was my first Wiki-meetup, and I wasn't sure how it was going to turn out, but I had a great time! I'm sure the other restaurant patrons must have thought we were crazy, having these big noisy bull-sessions about all things enWiki, but it was great to really connect with the human beings behind the user-names on a project we all feel passionate about; its easy to forget sometimes that there's a real human being behind these electrons. I hope I'll be fortunate enough to run into you at another meetup sometime! :-) Until then, I remain yours truly, User: Bullzeye ^contribs 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It was a pleasure to meet you, as well. :-) We had a nice time visiting with everyone. The long weekend made it perfect for a 2 day meetup. People came from at least a half a dozen states. I hope that we can plan more meetups over long holiday weekends so that we get a good regional turnout like we did for this one. If so, then maybe we will cross paths again. Until then, Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Jorgenson Quintet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS ( talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,   Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Your flagrant disregard for our most basic values and core policies is disheartening. Encouraging packs of editors to harass, stalk and intimidate those they disagree with is very damaging to Wikipedia. You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior. I hold you personally responsible for your role in condoning these grotesque and abusive actions. I hold out hope that in the future you will do a better job standing up for Wikipedia’s integrity and editors that are targeted for abuse. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, it must be the phase of the moon. We have both managed to annoy people who have misinterpreted our motives and aims today. Have you seen WP:ANI#Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin?

CoM, I am certain that whatever your concerns or complaints, Flo is not intentionally doing anything to harm anyone or anything on Wikipedia. I have not been following the case closely enough to make any specific comments, but please be aware that no matter how it appears to you, she is first and foremost doing her utmost to be fair and impartial. I know you are having a difficult time, but do not blame Flo for these difficulties or the actions of others. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to drop me a note or email me. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

That's good to know. I'll try to keep in mind FloNight means well as she assumes bad faith and passes judgment on me based on smears and lies about my editing history and motives. It is somewhat comforting and encouraging that she isn't intentionally assisting a long term campaign of stalking, bullying, harassment and censorship. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I am moving my reply here since Shelly may not appreciate us turning her page into an OT discussion. My replies:

• "was violating policy by coordinating ways to get your groups pov edits in an article" - discussing how to create content is not against policy...? And I believe the emails, if real, should show that we were paying respect to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and such, and not pushing some undue pov...? I hope our dedication to creating encyclopedic, neutral content will be taken under consideration.
• "there were many instances of coordinating who could revert in order to not have one user violated 1RR and get blocked or banned" - avoiding getting banned is nothing wrong, I'd think - of course, as long as it doesn't include variously defined "gaming the system"? I did and do support reduction of reverting (which of course reduces the chances of editors getting banned for obvious reasons - I don't think that giving advice to revert less is gaming the system?). I also strongly believe that blind reverts are bad, and proper reverts imply an editor understands the issue in question (which usually involves reading the article and joining the discussion). I also believe that under the above assumptions it is ok to discuss content with editors who trust, based on past experience, not to be blind reverters. At the very least I can say that this is what I expected from others, and this is what I always did before reverting myself. As promised, I can discuss details of what was said (and whether it was said) in individual emails in a more private venue.
• "The discussions about ways to get around article editing restrictions far out number the internal discussion about why someone's on site edits were problematic." - I find this surprising (although I was not following and/or participating in every single discussion we had). I'd like to point out that discussing, let's say, security of certain piece a software doesn't make one a cracker. In fact, I am pretty sure I used some of our discussion to make public recommendations on how to improve the functioning of this project ( User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom).
• "In particular, any discussion about ways to manipulate the admins that work AE is going to get close scrutiny." Good, admins shouldn't let themselves be manipulated :) I don't believe we ever attempted to manipulate / mislead / lie to anybody on the project, but only discussed how to properly air our grievances in the increasingly more complex and bureaucratic (and not always functioning perfectly) wiki dispute resolution environment. Again, I'd be happy to discuss content of specific emails (and/or diff-based incidents) in a more private venue.

Thank you for your interest and comments so far, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll take your comments into consideration. The full Committee will be in contact with you later about any specific evidence that may go into a Finding of fact for the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

When someone send a message saying "User Smith is edit warring at Foo. I've reverted twice and don't want to go over 2 reverts per day" is that commendable "reductions in reverting" or is it a call to arms? If two other mailing list members revert once each and then Smith is blocked for 3RR, is that only Smith's fault or is it improper coordination? I suspect it may be necessary to post actual examples (without identifying meta-info, of course) and allow uninvolved established editors to comment on the workshop. Thatcher 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, although comments from the parties may fall along the partisan lines; I am not sure how to avoid that. Looking at your example, it is an interesting case. What was the intention of the poster? Obviously, s/he didn't want to revert more him/herself, which is, ceteris paribus, commendable. Did that person expect others to join in reverting? Did they? Did that person expect others to read the article/discussion/sources before reverting? Is there any indication they did? Was it a call-to-arms or an invitation to discussion - both of which can be phrased the same but have different effects depending on members of the forum it is addressed to. Which parties joined the talk discussion and tried to reach some sort of compromise, who if anybody displayed WP:OWN? And let's not forget to look at User:Smith - was s/he edit warring? Were his/her edits potentially constructive (or vandal-like, ex. removing referenced text)? I am always happy to discuss my wiki edits, so I'll be looking forward to inquires about them from the committee. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. (And I deleted the WP file and verified the bot move on Commons.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Please suggest alternative wording for this section on talk, rather than continuing to remove it. We can't have a code of conduct without discussing the circumstances in which members are expected to resign, and the implications of that. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I replied on the talk page in the section talking about resignation as I made my change. Sorry if you missed it. The page is full of comments. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Flo, I'm sorry to ask this, but I feel I have to because you're on the Audit Committee that's looking into the oversight situation, and because your name is mentioned in a few places in connection with Lara's Bathrobe cabal and the Nashville meet-up. Did you know, before it emerged a couple of days ago, that Law was The undertow? SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Of course not. Did you think that it slipped my mind to inform the Committee during the time that we were discussing the matter? Or that I forgot to recuse on a case directly related to the situation? FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, thank you for the response. I don't know who informed the Committee of what. I asked because it seems to me that this is a time to be straightforward, and it's better to ask than to sit around wondering. I hope you can respect that. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be rather deceptive for me to withhold the information so the question seems to imply rather strongly that I was acting improperly. There isn't any other way to interpret your question, right? FloNight ♥♥♥ 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Flo. I remember seeing a conservation about verifying a person's ID, and think I remember you posting in the thread. I don't recall which page; to be honest, I'm lucky I can find my way back to my own page at the moment. Anyway, I did have my real life identity verified through the Citizendium process a while back. link I know this is not required yet, but I don't mind being early getting mine in just so I don't have to worry about it in the future. Also, I had sent other personal information (phone, location, etc.) to 2 admins. here with regards to WP:RIP back when we developed those guidelines. User:Huntster, and User:Royalbroil. During my RfA I also volunteered some of the same personal info to User:Jennavecia. I can also type up an email and forward to you as well with the same info if that would be of assistance. To be honest, I have no problem divulging the info to any established administrator, arb, crat, or steward in good standing. If a photo of my drivers license would be of benefit - I have no problem sending that along as well. I realize that these things are far and away from being requested at this point in time, and I also realize that much of the community would be against it. I personally have no opinion either way - but am willing to do so only in regards to myself. You are fully free to request any additional info, and forward any information to any area of the WMF which would be relevant. Thanks for you time. Ched. — Ched :  ?  05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. It is interesting that people have such varying opinions about identifying themselves. I'm signed my name to emails on public lists and private correspondence since 2005 when I started editing. For me it is an issue of accountability. My name is pretty unique so I'm easy to find and verify based on my comments on site. So, I would've had no problem with identifying from the start. But requiring identification for all editors would drastically change the nature of the project. The question is whether it would be for the good or would it stifle wiki editing to the point that it withers. FloNight ♥♥♥ 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It's an interesting question. I think if all editors were required to submit verified ID that was posted publicly, we would have fewer editors but they would be a lot nicer to each other. This would also curtail sockpuppeting, admins with second accounts, and all the other current evils of the world, but not prevent them entirely. Thatcher 13:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I realize that "editor" will likely never be requested to do this, but "admin" has come under a lot of fire as of late. I personally have no problems standing up to my efforts here (or anywhere else on the web) and saying: "This is who I am, and this is what I said". Although I'll admit to making a boo-boo once or twice. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Playing devil's advocate here - I guess we want to be careful not to further widen the gulf between admin. and editor - I think we want to narrow that gap. ... just thinking out-loud. — Ched :  ?  17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello FloNight, I hope that you are well this morning. On October 2 I sent an email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org and I was wondering, if it wouldn't be much trouble, if you could verify receipt of the message and that everything is on the up and up (so to speak)? Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I found it. Will look into it to make sure all is well. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

[1] - actually, as only admins (and up) can grant rollback, and she did so, granting L rollback less than a month after account creation, tools were abused. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Adding: I don't think this matters much in the overall picture, but as she knew at the time he was an ArbCom-ban-evading-sock, that is technically abusing the tools. As I stated in the header, merely a quibble. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I knew that when I wrote my comment. I think giving rollback to him is part of the same issue rather than a general misunderstanding about who should get the special tool. I was attempting to make the distinction between the stuff related to this incident and a pattern of misusing delete, protection, or blocking, or a general misunderstanding of policy. I'll tweak the wording to make it more clear. FloNight ♥♥♥ 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

And now it seems that was possibly an error; see here which would seem to be in conflict with Jennavecia's statement to Arbcom, that "he went on as Law and I supported him in that." Either she phrased her statement very poorly, or she is now revising her history. As I said its a minor point which I thought was a mere technical quibble, but now it seems there is concern regarding this on the Motions talk page. I confess I do not at this point know what to believe about this, or whether it makes any difference. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Your vote is missing on motion 3. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• I know :-) But thanks for reminding me. FloNight ♥♥♥ 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Please familiarize yourself with this essay: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

From whom, if I may ask? @ harej 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Anyone that is interested in commenting about the motion. FloNight ξξξ 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Your signature looks broken hearted. Paul August ☎ 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

They're back! Until I find something that I like better. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah and I see you've added an extra just for me. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Keep the hearts Flo! They so right for you! — JoJo • Talk • 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Flo and hearts go together! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, Flo. Just ran across this page you started on the Choctaw Indian Academy. It caught my attention because of the work I did on the Richard Mentor Johnson article a while back. Are you planning to finish this article and move it to the mainspace? I think it could be a decent article if someone has some time to put some work into it. If you move it to the mainspace, please add a link in the relevant part of the RMJ article. Thanks. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I plan to work on it more. I have a half dozen tabs open in a browser window with good sources, and I'm sure that there are more. One of my first ever edits to Wikipedia (in 2005) was to Richard Mentor Johnson's article. [2] [3] He is a very interesting dude. :-) I'll add links and I'll let you know when I move it to mainspace. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you please see User talk:Vassyana's talk page to see what I wrote. This is a big problem. One user claims that enemies are all socks. Including an editor that the user wikistalked then blocked as a sock. That editor was not editing POV nor are were there any claims that he was editing the same articles as other accused socks. In fact, socks was merely an excuse. It's as if I accused you of being a sock even though we don't edit the same articles and are not POV pushers for anything.

Spevw ( talk) 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems you are ignoring my request. This is too bad because you are a member of ArbCom, whose goal is to resolve these situations. Spevw ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No offense intended, but could you clarify for me what you mean by this? As I said in my statement, as far as I'm concerned I believe the conflict already has ended—I'm not interested in pursuing anything (and I never was interested in pursuing Epeefleche personally, all my contributions in that area were about The Shells article—now that its AfD is over, I have nothing more to say, and won't have anything more to say unless it comes up at DRV). The only reason the conflict is still going on is because Epeefleche et al. want some closure, not because it needs ArbCom's assistance. But I suppose you're free to have your opinion on it. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply; I disagree, of course, but the extra explanation is much appreciated. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I look at ongoing events that could change my vote, so if something happens to change my view, I'll update my vote and comment. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. -- Rmcnew ( talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You voted doubly here--accidentally, I guess. Ucucha 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

oops. I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You cited "[20090731-0918]" in your vote about Digwuren. Are you sure that's really the one you meant? Because it doesn't look that sinister to me. It's one of those where they are just trying to solve some internal conflict between their members. I don't think that should be held against them. Am I missing something, or is it just a mixup of timestamps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I found the comment to be highly problematic since it encouraged edit warring and using tag team editing to get around 3rr. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, I first wondered whether we were talking about the same mail, but now I found the bit you are referring to. You are quite right about that part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You misspelled User:Radeksz's name under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Radek. Triplestop x3 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you explain how your vote here concerns the proposed remedy? Further, can you explain how asking, off-wiki and privately, ArbCom functionaries about the correct interpretation of the recusal policy, is a problem? Are you saying that a party has no right to rise concerns over a possible CoI and the need for an arbitrator to recuse himself? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm saying that for you to see conflict of interest in this situation was so far outside of any actual COI that it was not a sensible interpretation of the policy and had the appearance of trying to find a way to get a better standing in the case. And given your past wikilawyering and manipulation of circumstances (evident from reading emails), I don't want to let you anywhere near a discussion about an article on this topic where you an a strong personal interest. I'm very sorry to say this because I know that it is not what you want to hear. But after being on the Committee for three years, and seeing your involvement in cases, AE enforcement, and reading the emails; I see the need to take a firm position about the topic ban. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Regarding the COI issue, I thought I am entitle to ask the arbcom functionaries, privately (to avoid causing a public dramu) about whether a recusal/COI policy here is relevant or not. Are you saying I shouldn't have had asked the question in the first place? And are you saying that asking the question justifies the topic ban?

Regarding "I don't want to let you anywhere near a discussion about an article on this topic where you an a strong personal interest". First, let me ask you: would you dispute my claim that 99% of EE-related content I make is constructive and uncontroversial? As my evidence to back up this claim, in addition to pointing out to my 20+ FAs, GAs and ~300 DYKs (all of which are community reviewed for stability and neutrality), I would like to propose that we do a sampling on a list of articles (~2200) I've created. As such, I hope it is clear that any problems are limited to a very small number of articles. Hence, I'd like to ask you: instead of a wide topic ban, couldn't we address the concerns raised with a combination of remedies that were discussed and received wide support on Proposed Talk from involved community members? To be specific, I refer to: 1) a ban on voting on all EE issues (AfDs, RMs) 2) a 1RR restriction (or a 3RR restriction applicable to all mailing list members treated as a single individual) 3) a topic ban from selected articles on which I (or other group members) have shown to display repeated bad judgment? 4) A civility parole? 5) a ban from participating in AE / ANI discussions unless I am directly involved? Wouldn't such a more surgical set of remedies address all the community concerns raised, and yet at the same time allow me to continue the uncontroversial content creation (which is what I do 99% of the time)? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight, sorry for trespassing you on this very page; but could you take a look and perhaps comment on this and this, particulary how particular situation is differ. Thanks, M.K. ( talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. oh, and that is Wiki cup? reply

You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts

• the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred. [4]
• administrators were to watch for further instances.
• harassment/ false accusations continued.
• harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing. [5] [6]
• harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. [7] The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
• In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.

• even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
• an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
• this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
• administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
• they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
• The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
• Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
• a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?-- scuro ( talk) 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 06:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Because of mentorstatements at the Jack Merridew review which seems to encourage his outright edit warring and disrupting legitimate DR attempts and statements like this, I have reinstated the ban proposal as part of my workshop. I have no confidence in the review there because of the structure in which the mentors are put in charge while they have clearly failed and seem to support behavior that is directly against the letter and spirit of our policies. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there a clerk to watch Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page? I feel that some of the content is getting off topic and digressing to a level that can only charitably be described as unpleasant. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I am contacting you on behalf of the WikiCup judges because you were involved in our previous points polling. Though most of the polls are now closed, we have restarted polls relating to the points value for both valued pictures and in the news entries. You are welcome to submit your votes here; the polls will be closing in a week's time. J Milburn ( talk) 19:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please note my question at the EEML arbcom case at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Clarification_needed. It would be good if the proposed decision is crystal-clear about this issue to avoid any problems further down the road. Pantherskin ( talk) 19:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've proposed an addition to the discussion/voting restriction in order to permit the use of GAC, FAC, and other such processes, as well as dispute resolution, where the editors is already directly involved. It seemed sensible. Check it out and let me know if you're OK with it. Vassyana ( talk) 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stanisław Koniecpolski/archive1? The latter came up recently and it may take me a while to address the issues raised; the former came up when I didn't have access to my works on him, which I will have for a while during XMAS (and then not again for half a year). As you can see in case of Koniecpolski, if I don't fix those issues, it is unlikely anybody else will anytime soon; it appears to be a similar case with the SioP case. I am still puzzled how the project will benefit by me not being able to help with those issues... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It comes down to making a decision about whether it is net gain or loss for you to continue to work in this area. You have been given the benefit of doubt for years. The previous rulings were not successful in altering the way that you work in this area. Now, the Committee (at least some members) is reaching the conclusion that your further involvement with these topics needs to be completely restricted to stop tendentious editing, and other disruption. Looking through your contributions yesterday, I saw an ongoing problem that caused me to reconsider a site ban. I plan to post about it later today on the PD, and PD talk page. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

And the benefit of the doubt yielded 20+ FAs, similar number of GAs, ~300 DYKs, and so on. I'd very much like to hear what was problematic with my editing yesterday, so I can learn from it and avoid repeating it. Thanks, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing me to the article in question. Please note I am withdrawing voluntarily from editing this article, even through no other editor there has requested that; I have also went over and struck out any comments that I think might have been less than fully constructive. Perhaps you are right I should focus on some other topics for now; to cool down for a while, would it be however possible to request specific exemptions, such as in the case of the two FARCs listed above, where I am pretty certain my edits are uncontroversial and constructive? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I know you say Piotrus has been given the benefit of doubt for years, but how come Biruitorul, DC76, Miacek and Vecrumba haven't been extended the benefit of the doubt in this case? What aspect of their histories is problematical for you that you feel that such long bans are necessary? -- Martin ( talk) 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for letting me know your thinking. I will ake it into serious consideration before I vote to close the case. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Flo, I've sent you an email via arbcom-l. -- Martin ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, and thanks. I've just dropped User:Dougweller a note about how the motion was archived and referred to my impression of your "intent" with the subpage structure:

• User talk:Dougweller#Jack Merridew motion

It seems to me that the conventions for the AC page-space have changed in the last year and that getting things cleanly organized will ease things for all down the road. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

For the past day, the clerks have been discussing how to archive these motions on the Clerk mailing list, too. The way to archive this stuff is evolving. In the past we did not archive stuff unless it was related to cases. But as we started doing more freestanding motions such as public unbans motions, or other type of reviews, we began recording/indexing/archiving them. But there is not one set way for everything yet, so give us some time to sort it out. I'll look over your suggestions, and see what the other clerks think, too. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, that would be what Doug was referring to. I actually like the direct link to oldIDs approach, but many like live archive pages and they do allow further annotations. I'll keep most of the talk about this on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Jack Merridew motion page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This 3RR report Wikipedia:AN3#User:Pantherskin_reported_by_User:Martintg_.28Result:_.29 might be related to the current EEML arbcom case as there seems to be coordination between User:Martintg and User:Miacek and a mysterious newly registered third account User:Bobwikwiki. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Somewhat related, I raised this question some ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_6#Regarding_.C2.A711_.28amnesty.29. Although some progress has been made by introducing FoF for most editors, User:Poeticbent is missing so far despite a previous Fof and sanctions in the Eastern European disputes arbcom case, and despite at least three attempts to disrupt Wikipedia [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], [20090731-0608]. Even worse, there does not seem to be an understanding that canvassing is disruptive as is evidenced by this comment [8] and this post-EEML sockpuppet investigation and this subsequent comment [9]. It was previously suggest to assign a mentor what seems to be an appropriate given that there is some confusion about appropriate editing and wikipedia policies. Pantherskin ( talk) 17:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• FloNight, please be aware also of the BLP policy issues raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard Tylman regarding WP:HA, WP:HOUND and WP:EQ per above. I'm understandably distressed. -- Poeticbent talk 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best Skäpperöd ( talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sanctioning people without Fof supported by diffs or other specific evidence is not an acceptable approach. I voted for remedies that should keep the people with Fof away from this topic. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response. I understood that this fof sums it up quite well. Have a look at four mudballs thrown at me this night [10] [11] [12] [13] to get a feeling for why I posted here. Best Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The only one throwing mudballs is you Skapperod. And you are doing it for a very long time. I lost the count how many times you tried to badmouth me on various talk pages, reports, "evidence" etc etc..  Dr. Loosmark  14:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 08:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Willking1979 ( talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Willking1979 ( talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! KnightLago ( talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A Nobody ^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas!

Once again it is festive season, a time where festive decorations are displayed and gifts are swapped; but what about the true meaning of christmas? The true meaning of christmas is about the fight for freedom and how in times of hardship and misery, one person leads their people to freedom as a great warrior; for those who fight for a cause are warriors and those who fight for a worthy cause are great warriors. Such an act earns respect and honour; but most importantly, brings happiness to their people. So to achieve this as happiness lies in other people's happiness and greatness lies in how you deal with little people, we selflessly think of others in the hope that they will be happy this christmas.

Hi FloNight, have a very Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year 2010!
  Set Sail For The Seven Seas 

   Set Sail  For The  Seven Seas   352° 44' 15" NET   23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker ( talk) 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Flo, as your arbcom term ends, congrats on being the only one from your term to last the whole 3-year term. Also thanks for showing me the ropes and helping me in the rough spots this first year of my term. I will always be indebted. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Rlevse Very much appreciate your kind words.  :- ) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Willking1979 ( talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Willking1979 ( talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! KnightLago ( talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

A Nobody ^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas!

Once again it is festive season, a time where festive decorations are displayed and gifts are swapped; but what about the true meaning of christmas? The true meaning of christmas is about the fight for freedom and how in times of hardship and misery, one person leads their people to freedom as a great warrior; for those who fight for a cause are warriors and those who fight for a worthy cause are great warriors. Such an act earns respect and honour; but most importantly, brings happiness to their people. So to achieve this as happiness lies in other people's happiness and greatness lies in how you deal with little people, we selflessly think of others in the hope that they will be happy this christmas.

Hi FloNight, have a very Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year 2010!
  Set Sail For The Seven Seas 

   Set Sail  For The  Seven Seas   352° 44' 15" NET   23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		For surviving three years as an arbitrator. Many try, most fail,   Roger Davies talk 09:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

:-) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Happy new year to you too, Flo :) Thanks for your service as an Arbitrator, and ditto Roger! Daniel ( talk) 11:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I saw your term had expired and you're stepping down. Thank you for your service - you were always a voice of reason and sanity. Enjoy what will hopefully be a quieter New Year.  :) MastCell  ^Talk 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I would like to add my thanks for all the work you've done over the last three years as an arbitrator. Enjoy a much less drama-filled 2010.-- Slp1 ( talk) 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you all for the kind words. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I came here to say the same thing! Thanks for taking care of this very tough side of the project with a heck of a lot of grace. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Well done, indeed. Very few Arbitrators make it all the way to the end (and none make it completely unscathed). Thank you for your years of service to the projects. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you both for the words of appreciation. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, and to you too! Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

See my user page with me and Skip hangin' with Cell Phone Sanata! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

WOOF WOOF. Thanks, Flo, one of my favorite wiki gals! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC). reply

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Flo. Congratulations on completing three years of service as an arb, and thank you for all your excellent work. Warm regards, Paul August ☎ 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I'm enjoying the quiet mail inbox the most. :-). FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your years of service. I haven't always agreed with your decisions, but it was so comforting to know that a person of integrity was there. Best wishes for 2010. Novickas ( talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year to you too. KnightLago ( talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, Flo. You won't be in Frankfort any time soon, will you? I just nominated Julian Carroll for GA, but I don't have a picture. Since he's still living, I can't go the fair use route, and any photo of him is likely to be copyrighted. Since he's a state senator, he's probably going to be around the capitol for the next few weeks while the General Assembly is in session. Just wondering if you would be around and could maybe arrange to get a picture. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll see what I can do about getting an image of him. Let me check the dates of the session (and the weather forecast!!) before I say for sure.

Several days ago, I saw the discussion about an image for Bert T. Combs. I've not looked again to see if you got past the issues involved. If you are still having problems there, then feel free to contact me to see if there is a way I can help. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for noticing my issue on Bert Combs. No, I don't think it has been resolved. I understand that, since he was a federal judge, there should be a PD image of him out there, but I'm having a devil of a time finding one, and it's awfully difficult to prove a negative (i.e. that a PD image does not exist.) The editor who opposed the nom on these grounds suggested I check box J of The Bert T. Combs Collection at UK. If you have access to this, there might be a PD portrait of him there. Not sure if UK would let you scan it if there were, but if you're in the mood to check...

Thanks so much for checking into the Gov. Carroll image. Not sure if you can set up an appointment with a legislator during a session or anything like that, but you might check to avoid wasting a trip. I've been dreading the whole "fair use" thing petering out on me. I'll face similar issues for governors John Y. Brown, Jr., Brereton Jones, and Paul Patton; the others seem to have PD images available. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 19:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I wrote to Gov. Carroll to see if he could either provide an image or let me snap a picture. I gave a link to the article and this page so they could see the need. So they might be reading this discussion. :-)

I'll follow up on the Bert T. Combs image, too. I'll let you know when I hear back something about either of these images. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks as always. I'm hoping the Combs FA nom doesn't fail for a lack of comments before I can get this resolved. If you ever need a picture or source from out here in the west central area of the state, drop me a line so I can return the favor! Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 17:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

an fyi re my last motion. Basically I tidied up the archive of it and have updated my own history page.

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#2nd Jack Merridew motion

Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

On January 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Howard C. Hillegas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You PRODded this article, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested here (it appears that the subject has died) so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored the article, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 09:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. As long as it is rewritten with refs to support the notability and identifying information then it should be fine. It's on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. I'll help get the key stuff sourced with in line citations if he finds the refs. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 10:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I get the idea a lot of us are thinking along similar lines with what you just told me. I went to the RfC talk page for a non-policy proposal to organize an effort to ask Wikiprojects and editors at large to work on the problem. Please tell me what you think. I'm not the right person to actually head up such an effort, which I think should take a few weeks to do some limited publicizing. Perhaps someone with experience and better known to the community at large might be a chairman or ... chairwoman. Please take a look. [14] -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Joseph Tate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Having a notable cliant doesn't make a lawyer notable - he's referenced only in connection with the case which is, I think, mentioned elsewhere

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Was this some sort of error, or did you deliberately delete my posts? And if so, why? Gatoclass ( talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

hmmm. I have no idea how that happened. I made my post and saved without an edit conflict. Sorry that your stuff got lost. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

No problem, I was just wondering. It's late here, so perhaps I will forgo a restoration of those comments tonight and come back fresh tomorrow. Thanks for the quick response. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for asking. Here are my thoughts regarding this..I was initially upset at the action which felt like it came out of nowhere and I almost saw it as vandalism, somehow working here you come to see content of any kind except uncited derogatory attack type contact worthy of keeping, articles become in your mind as worthy even though they are uncited but perhaps have an external link that verifies some of the contact and on appraisal you accept the rest of the content as non damaging and non controversial easily acceptable as real, so you see the content as good and worth saving even though it is under the examination of policy it is not. This was my initial response to what I perceived as an attack on these good articles. Over the week I have been accepting the reality of the need to stay within policy and even though it is painful and a fair bit of content will get deleted, that is the correct thing to do. I have started looking at all uncited content as in need of deleting, which, under policy it clearly is. Personally after the initial shock I just needed a bit of time to get my head around it and I imagine a fair few editors that initially objected have quietly been taking it on board as a necessary thing.

My position now regarding these 50 000 uncited BLP's and the work required and the disruption it will cause within the community is that I have even begun considering it may be better and in the end less upsetting to say to editors, you have a month and then any uncited article will be speedily deleted, add a new speedy delete option, of uncited BLP to allow for this, this way there will not be as much fuss and disruption within the community. Just close your eyes and press the delete button what has not been cited in a month will simply disappear. Truth is that the vast majority of them will never ever be a worthwhile cited article.

Credibility is another issue, Wikipedia credibility is judged imo by the higher profile articles, a lot of these uncited articles are unwatched and also un-viewed, flagged revisions is also in need of implementation as soon as is practicable.The outcome of this imo will be that the wikipedia will be a very different place to what it is now, it would need a crystal ball to see the outcome as regards editors and the community. A wiki that is totally cited, totally locked to further vandalism or uncited additions would perhaps become a stale stagnant place itself, a lot of the energy here is created by the traffic created by this playfull tit for tat game playing.

Notability is also part of the issue, lax acceptance of who is actually notable has impounded the issue as editors came to accept articles about not notable people, who although perhaps known have no wide strength of coverage and due to that almost impossible to find citations for. Athletes you say are stubs and stale, this is another issue, how much actual value is that article to the public, perhaps none at all, some of the notability levels are too low, which is also part of the issue, these will never make an article and will be a stale stub, professors, so and so is a professor at Moscow university, truth is he is not notable and yet he passes the prof test claim to fame, this is the reason for these slate stubs in my opinion and you will never get an a editor to improve them because they is nothing else to add, any athlete that won an Olympic medal is presently a keep, the majority are not really notable, have one citation and are never and will never get viewed. Also unknown Slovakian footballers and so on, all of these fringe notable subjects in truth add little or no value to the vast majority of readers and are generally unwatched which also is an issue as regards vandalism.

Whatever the community decide in the next few days I will support and join in with its implementation, I do think that whatever is decided, it should be explained in depth to the community as to the benefits and outcomes that will improve the wikipedia in the long term. The outcome as far as I can see should be, a fully cited, fully watched, protected collection of articles which are respected as a reliable source of information by the general public, the reader. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re #6, while I can understand imposing such a requirement on new BLPs due to the particular perils involved, I see no reason it should be imposed on other articles where those issues aren't applicable. I'm an Eventualist in this regard (but not across the board). If an article is not speedyable or is Kept at AfD, then it's good enough to serve as a starting point for future work and give the reader some level of answer as to "what is ___?". #6 is akin to mass-deleting stubs, except many of the eligible articles would be above stub-level.

Re #5, I do agree there is wasting of time involved, but on the other hand there's no deadline so there's no need to be "desperate" about culling the chaff. I do agree there are crap articles whose AfDs are just rubber-stamping, but I have also several times seen contributors come in and show the topic is quite notable and/or drastically improve its quality. And such rubber-stamp AfDs don't usually take up many editor-minutes in my experience.

I am impressed and surprised you responded to my comment, and for that I commend you. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, would you mind if I asked questions about your comment on the Antisemitism talkpage here? -- ZScarpia ( talk) 12:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply

My answer was pretty straightforward. My suggestion is that if you have a question about possible violations of the editing restrictions then either take it to Arbitration Enforcement or file a request for clarification. I'm no longer on the Committee so I'm commenting as an former arbitrator, and current admin. I don't plan to discuss it further on the talk page as it is a distraction from the article discussions. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

As far as asking you here to confirm whether or not I have understood your talkpage comment correctly, I should take that as a No then? The reason I'm asking you here rather than the talkpage is because I agree that the point has been reached when the discussion that I started there should be moved elsewhere. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 11:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

As I said in my first reply, my answer is pretty straightforward so I don't see the need for much in the way of clarification. But if you say that you don't understand it then, sure, I'll give a short reply. I'm focusing on other wiki work now and don't have time for in depth follow up of the matter beyond that though. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

[Unindent] Oh dear, it's not so much that I don't understand, it's that I want to make sure that I do understand. You said: "As long as Jayjg stays away from directly editing or discussing A-I topics in relation to Antisemitism, then editing this article should be fine." I've taken that to mean that Jayjg may edit articles which touch on the Arab-Israeli conflict so long as he doesn't edit the parts of those articles which specifically refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He may also edit the talkpages of those articles so long as he avoids discussing anything relating directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Have I interpreted your comment correctly? That's the one thing I wanted to ask. The arbitration case generated huge amounts of drama and cost a lot of people a lot of time and effort; I'm trying to avoid theatricality and to minimise further demands on the latter. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Correct. IMO, the general topic is too broad to automatically be excluded from the list of articles that he should avoid editing. As long as he avoids the topic while editing or discussing the article, and his edits are not otherwise disruptive, then I do not have a problem with him editing the article. In general, the point of this type of editing restriction is to stop disruptive editing or tendentious editing. My snapshot review of the edits and talkpage discussion shows collegial editing. If I missed something and there are actually problems, then Arbitration Enforcement is the place to go for follow up. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The reason I'm doing what I'm doing is because it looks to me as though reasonable changes to the articles are being blocked using specious, even absurd, reasoning. I don't particularly like bringing the restrictions up and hope that my doing so in the current case doesn't look as vendetta-like as some of the earlier instances by other editors. Thanks, I'll stop bothering you now. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey Flo! How's life after arbcom? R says you prob have lot less stress now. — JoJo • Talk • 18:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi :-) Yes, life is much less stressful since I left ArbCom. How are you? FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Flo, I am okay. R, sometimes he pee baa (crazy) you know! — JoJo • Talk • 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hamlet, what's up! Go to my user page and check out Skip and I playing in Skip's first snowfall. There's a pic of us with Valentine Teddy too. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC) reply

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) reply

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork * ^YES! 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply