User talk:FloNight/Archive Apr 2007

Anesthesia edit war
Hi. If you have time, given your background, you might be well-suited to look into WP:ANI. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotros-Ghirla arbitration
Please review and consider voting for the pending motion to dismiss in the Piotros-Ghirla case, given that Ghirlandajo hasn't edited in over a month, and the parties were in mediation before that. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.". This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people  Analysis of situation  Suspicion of sockpuppet account  Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) 

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user. A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244)and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder . Thatcher131 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on same user Talk page Thank you. avyakt7 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Wierd happenings at Articles for deletion/Exodus+. The person who created the article (User:Artistthatneverwas) claims to have a dual account. It seems wierd because how can you know which of them is making what edit. Anyway, just fishing for some input from someone who has at least a few functioning neurons. --DanielCD 22:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * NVM. The author asked to delete it so I closed the AFD. So whatcha been up to? --DanielCD 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the barnstar and your kind words! You're a great asset to the projects as well, you know... ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking talk pages
Isn't it against policy for a user to repeatedly blank the vandal warnings, in fact blank the whole page, even if it's their own user page? It's public space. I had to unprotect a vandal's talk page, even though he blanked it about seven times, because I can't find in the policy where it says this. It's getting to the point where you need a lawyer around here, even for things that should be painfully obvious. --DanielCD 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I think, generally, that we at arbcom should do everything that we can to strengthen more community-centered dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly RFC, and where appropriate, mediation. I think that RFC is important for three reasons: You are correct that the specifics of the case are very strong, but my real point is that RFC should have been used earlier in the process before it got out of hand. I support a clear and simple dispute resolution process as much as anyone else but not at the expense of skipping important steps. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It serves as a final warning, eliminating the need for arbcom to issue remedies in the form of "This is your last warning. Don't do that anymore."
 * 2) Oftentimes, the community response is strong enough that the perp will actually change their behavior, especially if the perp is an admin or a well-known member of the community.  This is something arbcom is not ordinarily able to achieve (we are usually only successful in convincing users that contributing to Wikipedia is not for them).
 * 3) It provides the arbcom with solid information on how the community feels about a particular incident.  This is useful in its own right, and its separate collection allows us to better police our own pages in good conscience to remove opinions from onlookers.
 * Do you have any recent examples of successful RFC outcomes (your #2)? I'm having trouble thinking of any, and my experience, confirmed by a perusal of WP:RFC/USER just now, is that most RFCs are either a) harassment by a disruptive or at least equally-disruptive party, b) good faith but disastrous attempts at a resolution which end up being the same parties that were in the dispute talking at each other rather than to each other, or c) unnecessary drains on the community for obvious cases where it is already clear that only a block or other binding resolution will help. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/PMA (which I brought) resulted in a voluntary self-desysopping. Thatcher131 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really any more of a successful behavior change than arbcom desysopping someone involuntarily (and resigning is different from becoming a sound admin). I ask because Steve said that RFC can cause a behavior change where arbcom can't. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi FloNight. Thanks for trying to help with Jonathan Corrigan Wells. The article still has a long ways to go I'm afraid. Steve Dufour 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Community enforced mediation
I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. Durova Charge! 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OTRS permission
Hello there, your assistance is kindly requested at Image:ShilpaShettyPETA.jpg. A user with OTRS access is required to provide a link to the relevant ticket. After this is done I may go ahead and re-upload the original hi-res version, thank you. Ekantik talk 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VER and possible libel problem at Adi Da
Hi FloNight,

Perhaps you can have a look at the Adi Da article, where one editor has been trying to add non-V-RS material that is potentially libelous.

To summarize, the subject of the article, Franklin Jones aka Adi Da Samraj, is the leader of a new religious movement who was sued in the 1980's over alleged sexual, physical, emotional and financial abuses. The suit, and surrounding controversy, attracted quite a bit of mass media coverage. These facts are not disputed and are well-sourced in the lead section. To the best of my knowledge, these suits were settled out of court with cash payments and non-disclosure agreements (see last paragraph here).

Some followers of Adi Da have self-published a website containing statements from the ex-husband of one of the plaintiffs. On that site, the ex-husband alleges, among other things, that his ex-wife's lawsuit was essentially false and that she recanted. Obviously, that site is not a V RS for the views of the plaintiff, and fails to meet Wp:v in several ways. Additionally, it's potentially defamatory toward the plaintiff, insofar as it implies that that she perjured herself by bringing the lawsuit.

I've attempted to remove this material several times (my discussion here). Unfortunately, editor Scribe5 (talk • contribs) continues to restore the material, neglecting to address my objections. .

Can you have a look at this? I don't want to edit war or flirt with 3RR, but I believe this material is highly inappropriate. Only a few editors edit the article, and some of them just don't seem to grasp NPOV, VER and OR, so POV-pushing is often a problem. If you feel it's not as cut-and-dried a situation as I feel it is, of course I can bring an RfC. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems that we've managed to resolve this at Talk:Adi Da. I think I jumped the gun a little bit by contacting you (it was just the libel thing I was worried about), and apologize for diverting your attention from more important matters.  Wishing you all the best, FloNight -- Jim Butler(talk) 08:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reginald Claypoole Vanderbilt
Hi, can you explain why you deleted the Reginald Claypoole Vanderbilt article? What is the BLP issue you refer to? Edward 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

request for clarification - Kosovo arbitration committee's decision
Hi, I have entered a request for clarification regarding remedies that were taken against me (sorry if that's incorrect grammar) in the Kosovo arbitration case in October last year. I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at my entry and answer my questions. Regards Osli73 13:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability RFAr
You said you may "reconsider if the parties take steps towards resolving this on their own before a case opens". Would this mediation help?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning for editing resposnsibly on Sathya Sai Baba
Do you think it is fair and reasonable to ban an editor from a subject whose edits you describe as responsible? It is partially your fault because you filed the ignored request for clarification. What should I have done on Robert Priddy when all dispute resolution was not responded to? Mediation and RFCs were consdired not valid by SSS108. Andries 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What should I have done on Robert Priddy when all dispute resolution was not responded to? Simple answer...walk away for as long as needed. Maybe forever. There is not a topic that any one of us needs to edit. The earlier that an editor in the course of editing at Wikipedia understands this concept the better it is for them, the community, and the encyclopedia. When ArbCom looks for solutions to disputes, in the final analysis we are not going after fair to the editor. We are going after what is best for accomplishing our goal of writing the encyclopedia. Take care, FloNight 13:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. Do you think that the article will be better sourced when I am gone? If so who will provide the sources? I added about 80% of the sources. I have ordered several books to make the sourcing better (Hawley, Kent, and a German scholarly book). I am not aware that anyone else has done so much efort. Who will improve the article Sathya Sai Baba movement] when I am gone? I wrote >95% of the article incl. sources. Andries 14:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how a user that makes responsible edits on an article does not make the encylopedia better? Andries 14:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Well, thanks! And, aye, it doesn't really feel like a year, though certainly a lot has happened, particularly on the W.S. Gilbert front. I do hope I'll use them well, though how much I'll end up using them will have to be seen: I like to hope that at least some disputes can be sorted without need for actual admin tools. =) Anyway, take care, and hope the last year has gone as well for you as can be hoped! Adam Cuerden talk 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:204.14.14.155
Could you second my decision to block this user (24 hrs). He made a nasty personal attack/threat on a userpage and I took it unto myself to block him immediately. I just wanted to ask for a second opinion cause I usually give more leeway, but lately I have little patience for attacks on userpages. Thanks. --DanielCD 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

GordonWatts case
Hi, FloNight. I see that you rejected the GordonWatts arbitration case. I'd like to ask you to take the time to read my statement. I don't really expect the case to be accepted, so I'm not asking you to reconsider, but I forced myself to find time, to write that statement, so it's a pity that arbitrators had already started voting before I got it in. I do believe that there is a problem with the community sanctions, which you supported, because several people voted to allow one post per day on Schiavo talk pages, and unrestricted editing on the Schiavo articles (though almost everyone agrees that he's not to add his links), and several voted to allow no Schiavo-related editing or talk page posts. There was not a single editor who voted that he could edit the talk pages but not the articles. That's a clear misunderstanding. I don't know that the result would be if mathematically analysed, and I don't have time to work it out. Obviously, Gordon shouldn't have voted himself, but the fact that there are "first choice" votes and "second choice" votes makes it complicated. However, the declared result was not anybody's choice; it was never offered as an option for voting.

My main reason for wanting this case to be accepted is that I am very familiar with the long history of unpleasantness at the Terri Schiavo article, and have seen constant examples of Gordon being abused and ridiculed. I believe that several admins are of the opinion either that his behaviour is not the worst behaviour there or that it's not the only problem. I'm concerned that some kind of unwritten policy is creeping in that it's okay to abuse and belittle people if we can categorize them as "problem editors", even if they are not vandals. I have seen that argument made on a few occasions, particularly by Calton.

If the case is accepted, the arbitrators will very likely have to wade through hundreds of brightly-coloured words from Gordon, who will almost certainly not modify his behaviour for the sake of not irritating the people who are deciding his fate! I really will understand if you still feel you should reject the case (though I will then ask JzG to reconsider the odd result that he announced), so please don't take this as a request for you to accept the case &mdash; just as a request to read my post and decide what you think is appropriate. Thanks. Musical Linguist 00:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Thatcher131's request, I have created this section for you
I will add my observations and thank ML for her post above; I wonder if you have looked at the facts in this case of mine: Requests_for_arbitration

I'm not the only one who thinks I have a case. Since I last posted, many new people (not just Musical Linguist) have posted in my support!

Besides having over 4,500 edits with no major discipline or major problems, I now note that Thatcher131 suggested that: "I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"

I hope you do as Thatcher suggests and follow the links! I know I have posted a lot, but several statements by other editors were well-over 500 words, so please indulge me if I go a little over too: I'm being falsely accused!

To grant Thatcher's request, I have created a new section for you:


 * 1.4.3.2 Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
 * 1.4.3.2.1 -No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-
 * 1.4.3.2.2 -These editors support my claims of innocence-
 * 1.4.3.2.3 -These editors desire ArbCom intervention-
 * 

If you mess up, it isn't my fault: I've done my part, and I have little to add to the somewhat lengthy ArbCom page in my matter. (I add that my mistreatment is only one aspect; If this is allowed to stand, it will set a bad presedent -that it is ok to mistreat just anybody -and that policy doesn't matter any longer: Note that consensus policy was violated by admin, JzG.)

--GordonWatts 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war case
This is just a minor issue, but I believe the first principle to be incomplete. It reads "Administrators who wish to delete articles that are clearly outside the criteria for speedy deletion should list those articles at Articles for deletion", but in my opinion should contain the addendum "... or Proposed Deletion". I'm not about to go editing an arb decision page, but perhaps you could fix this?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography 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. Mocko13 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurs e work 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your stated aim of not trying to be fair
I suggest that you think twice about your aim of not trying to be fair. Why should I be fair to you, to Wikipedia, or to anyone else, if you do not try to be fair to be me? Being fair as much as the goals allow it is a generally accepted behavioral rule of any community. If you persist in your stated aim of not being fair then please let me know, so that I know whether I have to be fair you or to others in Wikipedia. I suggest you also support removal of the word "community" from Wikipedia internal pages. I hope to hear your reply. Andries 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Link to my comment that prompted this reply from Andries


 * Andries, I'm going to let my comment stand for now. I know this is not want you want to hear but I think that this is in the best interest of the project. Work on some other areas of Wikipedia and maybe later you can return to this topic. Take care, FloNight 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS verification request
Could you please confirm that the OTRS permissions for the following three images (which link to the same OTRS permission), are valid and in order, and confirm the images are released to the public domain? I am looking in to an issue raised about an editor who appears to be wilfully and deliberately placing fraudulent information on images he uploads. I am an administrator but do not have access to check OTRS permissions. --Yamla 18:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Rajini in spain.jpg
 * Image:252157716 887607f66c.jpg
 * Image:Vijaytamil.jpg


 * This issue has now been dealt with. Thanks, sorry for not being able to catch you while you were around.  --Yamla 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAr
I saw that you decided to participate in the Robert Prechter arbitration (I don't know if my prodding had anything to do with that, but your voting was certainly helpful in resolving the issue concerning the size of the majority). Requests for arbitration/Starwood has the same issue concerning the number of arbitrators and it would be great if another arbitrator, yourself or someone else, could add herself or himself to the panel in that case as well. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

clarification of edit summary
Regarding your edits here was this on the arbcom mailing list, or a public mailing list? Thanks Navou   banter  /  contribs  02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom mailing list. FloNight 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Navou   banter  /  contribs  03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: AC/CN
Waiting for the 24-hour (which means around 1pm ET Wednesday). Thanks for the notification. Cheers. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC) It should be closed. Can you possibly look over and check whether I made some mistakes? Note that I didn't add the parties to the parties listed alphabetically because I wasn't sure who was named (I gave closing notice to all parties named in the original case). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note
Left an e-mail for some private matter. Please inform when you reply. Cheers. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAr re: DBachmann
I have added some more content to the request to show why content RfC might not be the best solution []. I have done an RfC on DBachmann. The mediation cases were titled with article name, but the issue is still DBachmann's behaviour. He won't participate in mediation and also won't clearly decline mediation. This has not left me with much choice. I would appreciate if you could reveiw the details in RfAr and provide your views. I do hope it is not against policy to leave a note to you here. If it is please let me know.Sbhushan 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed speedy delete tag from Glenn Joseph Ellsworth
The article claims importance of subject. This could be taken to AFD. I prefer to give the author a chance to expand the article. FloNight 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem.....I can agree to that.Shoessss 12:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Thanks. I'll keep it on my watchlist. FloNight

And I just wanted to add....You did such a great job on the diplomatic reasoning that I have now taken the wording verbatim for my own when removing deletion tags …..Have a great day. Shoessss 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Machemehl
Could you please explain your reasoning to keep this article? It now looks to me like "it is interesting", but does not address the main concerns, namely that it fails WP:V (and therefore WP:RS and [[WP:BIO). If I look through the sources, there is only one source about John Machemehl (all the others are about his descendants), and that source is a genealogical tree written by a direct descendant based on letters he found, which is not an independent source and certainly not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me or on the AfD page if you think that the sources given are reliable independent and relevant sources, or otherwise if you have other reasons to keep the article despite it not following policy. Fram 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on AFD. FloNight 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RfAr - instructions needed
Hi, FloNight. Could you take a look at Wp:rfar (that's for the "E104421 and Tajik" case, in case someone files another case and throws the numbering off). Either on your own after caucusing with the other arbitrators, let us know how you want this case opened. The vote is 5/0/0/0 to open the case but you and another arb have voted to put it "on hold" and the Clerks aren't quite sure how to accomplish that (leave it as a pending request, or open it fully and just assume nothing will happen for awhile, or move it to a new case page but not open the evidence and workshop yet, or create a docket of held cases, or what) and would appreciate instructions so we don't maybe guess wrong. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I help needed
would you mind taking a look at WP:AN/I, seems to have gotten lost amidst the crowd. thanks, Doldrums 18:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
You asked me to be patient. I have been trying to resolve this dispute for the past 2 months. People are ignoring discussion and I have been waiting for that time period. Same people are ignoring any avenue for discussion even now. What would you recommend I do? -- Cat chi? 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
As you have said, my conduct could be examined from the other case, I added my name there with no real meaning other than because I have requested the arbitration. That article had already been presented for arbitration for at least two times in the past, and another time, I had prepared another request which has gotten uninvolved parties agreement, but I did not present the case. That article has a long history of soapboxing which hinder any real progress, the arbitration will find nothing new about myself, so I am not really involved, when it will be accepted I will already be banned anyway. I just brought this case so that at least when I am gone soapboxing will stop and people will start discussing about its actual content and how to improve it. THOTH being one of the major soapboxer, and who was warned on various occasions by many, I started with him. Fad (ix) 14:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
Hi,

You defined a community ban, quite properly, as an indefinite block which no administrator was willing to lift. I'm not a unilateral kind of guy, and I don't like creating drama, so I'm not suggesting that I object to the ban as yet. I know only bad things about Brandt in general. I do believe, though, in line with many commenters with whom I don't usually agree (Tony, Gmaxwell, Doc) that he has been demonized to an extreme degree, such that it is difficult to imagine him receiving a "fair hearing" in the community at large.

What I'm say is that I'm tempted to at least consider lifting the block. I won't do it without enlisting loads of opinion, because I am neither "rouge" nor insane. I just wondered if the knowledge that the ban is not completely beyond being contested would affect your decision to consider the appeal. I'd rather have the ArbCom consider the question than have anyone (least of me) create a tempest by undoing the ban in the normal way -- that is, lifting the block.

You can say a few things to me here, and I'll listen. You could say, "Xoloz, you're an idiot... Brandt really is that bad, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Don't even dream of lifting the block." You could say, "Xoloz, if you really think this deserves consideration, do what must be done: lift the block, and let processes proceed naturally." Or, you could strike some kind of middle between those two. I come to you for guidance. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Xoloz, I appreciate your interest in the case and your desire to consider all options regarding User:Daniel Brandt. I feel that the main purpose of ArbCom is to eliminate disruption as much as possible so that editors can go about our mission of writing a free content encyclopedia. I based my vote to reject the case on two main points. First, I do not think the issues that he raises in the RFArb are valid reasons for us to take his case. Second, based on my knowledge of the situation I feel the community ban should stand. I reviewed his ban previously when he took an interest in me and added me to his site based on information he received from banned user AMorrow. My review then (and now) is that it is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia to unblock User:Daniel Brandt. I can not imagine that he or any other editor could present evidence that would persuade me that the benefits of him editing would outweigh the disruption that his return would cause. Over the course of the past year, Brandt has made many threats toward editors and admins in good standing. Unless Brandt agrees to no longer threaten users I think it is impossible for him to return as a user in good standing. These two reasons together caused me to swiftly vote to reject the case with the hope to minimize the disruption and keep the community focused on our core mission. Take care, FloNight 21:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... that's a key bit of information. if Brandt continues to add new ArbCom members to his own webpages, it is rather ridiculous for him to look to ArbCom for relief: Unclean hands, such as they are. Thanks for the explanation.  Best wishes, Xoloz 22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom-related stuff
A barnstar to you for all your work on the Arbitration Committee.

But, besides that, I have to say, I agree with you regarding the Daniel Brandt case listed at Requests for arbitration.

It would be very difficult to have an arbitration case surrounding this: I could understand there being one over wheel-warring about the article, but a case about the article itself would be far harder to do itself.

I myself would like to try and get involved in more ArbCom-related tasks: if you could help me, I would appreciate that.

You have done some excellent work for this community and I commend you for that. Keep the high standard up.

If there is anything I can do to help as regards ArbCom, then let me know! -- SunStar Net talk  19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello SunStar Net :-) Thank you very much for the barnstar. The Brandt situation is a difficult one with no perfect outcome likely to occur. I think the best we can do is take the course of action that will result in the least disruption so the community can stay focused on our core mission to write a free content encyclopedia.


 * ArbCom welcomes the help of editors with our clerking tasks. Clerking activities are coordinated at Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. The active Official ArbCom Clerks can explain the role that clerk helpers play and help you get started. Once you get started I will be happy to answer any general questions that you might have or specific question about a case.


 * Again, thanks for the barnstar. Take care, FloNight 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery,  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Arbitration
Hello FloNight,

Could we do a check user on ? I think he might be a sockpuppet of. I think he is playing both sides.

Thanks, Mudaliar 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi FloNight!
Hi! I think you may misread my user talk page by mistake. I think who you were implying was GeneralIroh, who was just talking about himself on my page. I originally asked him to adopt me, however he has said that he is not that experienced. I would however love to help patrol articles for Kentucky but it may not be that helpful as I am from the UK. Anyway, good luck with the editing! Please sign my signature book anyway! pizza1512 Talk  Autograph 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:David Boothroyd
Regarding the article Talk:David Boothroyd and the associated deletion log deletion log, I was wondering if you would be able to explain why 38 revisions have been deleted? This was clearly a considerable history and directly relevant to the associated article. It's continued absence will make it difficult for prospective editors to apply changes to the main article without the benefit of the history/discussion/debate/argument contained within the talk page. Surely a more conservative culling could have been made, if necessary?

As advised by SqueakBox is this a matter for you the editor or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents leaky_caldron 11:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page
This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)