User talk:FloNight/Archive Jun 2007

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

 * 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. â Vsh Bot (t â¢ c) 19:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC comment
(you wrote) Thank you for taking the time to make a well thought out comment on the Rfc/QZ Deletion dispute. I appreciate your calm detailed description of the situation. Take care, FloNight 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Do please note that I have also commetned on the DESiegel|arbitration request]], urging the arbcom to take the case. I think that jeff has gotten a little strident over this issue, but I can hardly blame him, as other people have been IMO simply ridign roughshod over consensus, in ways that I think are in fact quite possibly ban-worthy, and IMO jeff is basically on the right on this issue, and people keep misconstruing what he is saying rather badly. DES (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Louisville brainstorming about enhancing communication and coordination
See this project talk topic. Your views are very much welcome! Stevie is the man! Talk â¢ Work 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD Rfa
Hi FloNight, you asked me to reconsider. I genuinely do believe that an editor should have about 12 months experience at the very least. Four months does not seem to be much experience to me. Sorry if you disagree, but that is my opinion at the moment. Goldâ¥  02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration
I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your pro censorship ruling
Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

--- The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

'''This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.'''

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org --- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Zero0000
Hello, Thank you for asking for my side of the story. I am going overseas and there's a good chance I won't be able to discuss this for about 10 days. I don't even have time left right now to read everything that has been said so far. I would much appreciate it if you could copy the following statement to the necessary place or places. "I found an article called something like 'pigs and monkeys' which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this 'information', no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the 'delete' button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about 'some Jews'. When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty." Thanks! --Zerotalk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I just hope that Zero did not really ment to compare me to a Nazi.

2. As it turns out what he describe as "rabid anti-islamic filth" is already has it's own enecylopdic content here: - while this article is focused on the Quranic origin of the expression - the article I created focused on the expression itself and the use done today for dehumenizing jews (the sourced content clearly show that). If I would have known about the "Islam_and_antisemitism" article (I did not knew at the time) I whould have just expended that article and/or put a redirect.

3. These are tough subjects: Islam, antisemitism, islamphobia, ephitets used in multi-national conflicts, racism - but this is why we have rules, policies, code of behaviour and process on how to deal with them in Wikipedia.

4. The article was taged for speedy by one admin. I listened to his reasons, discussed it, expended the article and he took down the speedy tag. Zero overrode not only the process, ArbCom rulling but also that 1st admin decision.

5. The proper way was to suggest a merge (I would agree) or to put the article for an AFD (in which if I would have known about the bigger article I would vote: 'delete, merge and redirect')

Zeq 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI:. I would like to learn from this issue how to improve my style as a wikipedia editor. If you can help I would appriciate it. Zeq 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * 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. â Vsh Bot (t â¢ c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke
Hiya, it's been ages since I spoke to you on here.... you OK?? I've been on intermittent wikibreaks due to real-life issues, as much as I want to edit, I can't always. FloNight, I agree with your comments on WP:ANI: this is a clear-cut case of where WP:DIGNITY should come into play. High school/college/university athletes, are, by and large, not notable (per CSD A7).

If it comes up on deletion review we'll just have to deal with it as it comes... --SunStar Net talk 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message on my talk page. Process is such a distraction, it's been distracting me from mainspace editing for a bit... grrrr! And to think that Daniel Brandt was nominated for deletion for a 14th time. It's getting like the notorious Gay Nigger Association of America AfD debates. --SunStar Net talk 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alison Stokke
(Copied from Friday's talk page) A default to delete for lack of consensus makes just as much sense as default to keep. The difference being that once Wikipedia needed articles and that was the main focus. It made sense to hang on to as much content as was absolutely possible. Today as our volume of articles has grown our concern is about the quality of our content more than in the past. This is particularly true in regard to material about living persons as we have learned from experience that we have the power to be disruptive in peoples lives. That is the reason that the policies are evolving in that direction. FloNight 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But a "default to delete" system automatically gives more discretionary power to admins, which is inherently a bad thing. The proper role of admins is as functionaries, carrying out the will of the community as expressed through consensus and discussion, not as authority-figures with discretion to decide what's "right" for the encyclopedia. That's why discussion and process are important. It's a sad, but necessary, situation that we have to have different technical access levels, giving some users more power than others; to balance that, we need strict safeguards to ensure that the opinion of non-admins counts. Walton Assistance!  16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
Okay, I just filed a request for unprotection for this page, under the argument that there appears to have been no justification for such protection under WP:PROT, and was informed that it "appropriately protected" until a "review" under WP:OTRS was completed on a private mailing list.

So, as far as I can tell, someone emailed Wikipedia about this article, and wanted something changed, or was complaining, and that this was cause to fully protect the article until such time as their complaints were dealt with in a private review, by a number of unknown editors. However, I don't see any mention of this in any of the cited policy pages -- not on WP:OTRS, not on WP:PROT; no where. In fact, I've never even heard of this process before, let alone seen it as a justification for fully protecting an article -- what gives? I have no idea what's going on here, and none of the other people on the talk page seem to know what's going on either. --Haemo 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Links: RFPP .  Daniel  04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Without getting into the merits of the arguments of either side, you have violated both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which says "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute". Stepnet 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
Hi Flo. I don't know if I ever got around to thanking you for your welcome-to-WP post on my talk page. So, here it is; thank you. On this matter of Archimedes Plutonium DRV I must differ in my opinion of the situation. I think it's important because the AfD was closed by an admin with a clear majority, perhaps even a consensus, to keep. I left some comments on that DRV page that I think are significant from an administrative perspective. Good regards, Kenosis 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1RR per week
why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)