User talk:FloNight/Archive Nov 2007

Arbcom email
Hi, you suggested to me I mailed to the ArbCom mailinglist on the ArbCom talkpage. The mail is still with the moderator though, and I was wondering what would be the usual timespan for the moderator to approve emails for the mailinglist. If this is a typical time, that's not problem, but my fears of something going on that the community is not allowed to know are growing. I don't believe that this is the way of the Wiki, but before I get started on all that, I would just like to know if 4 days is a typical time, or that there are indeed some kinks in the pipe there. Martijn Hoekstra 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been a week now, and as you might understand, my concerns are rising again. Not only because the moderator hasn't approved the email (yet), but also because I don't hear anything back from you on weather or not this is normal. Could you let me know someting here, on my talk page, or through my email, if you think this information is too sensitive to be shared with the project as a whole? Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra 10:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A request...
Hello!

I would appreciate your feedback/thoughts on this proposal Articles_of_dispute_will_be_placed_under_general_revert_restriction.

Best, Alexia Death the Grey 15:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

 * 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. — O  bot  (t • c) 23:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Who requested Essjay's appointment to ArbCom?
Before the entire discussion was summarily deleted, I noticed that you said it would be appropriate to contact the Arbitration Committee mailing list, but you gave no link to that forum. My own research shows that that particular list is closed to those who are not on the Arbitration Committee. So, your otherwise helpful suggestion is proving to be a dead end for me. Would you be nice enough to bring to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that there is some question regarding the origination of the request to have Essjay installed on the Committee? When the Committee has reached either a consensus response, or when individual opinions can be expressed, perhaps they could be publicized on the Talk page of Essjay controversy. Libertyvalley 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on Libertyvalley talk. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re contentious articles
Thanks for your advice. I am trying to keep things cool, while providing comprehensive reasons for my editorial changes or suggestions. If you spot instances in recent days or in the future when I cross the line, please let me know.--Dking 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on Dking FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli
On the surface this case seems clearcut, but I would ask you to dig a little further than one might normally go in an investigation. It is very clear that Stefo does not follow the rules, but it seems that there is someone here that may be fueling the fire. I found some commonality to instances where things got out of hand. The culprit seems to be more subtle now. I believe instagation to be as bad if not worse than direct vandilism:

ON ANOTHER USERS TALK User talk:Pdbailey‎ (Notice to idoits): FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - BillCJ 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ON JIMBO WALES TALK PAGE: The point is if I want respect on Wikipedia, I should be an IP vandal. I'm not going to actually disrupt good articles, but I have no problem making life misearble for people who make life misearable for good serious editors. I may not do it, but heck, what can you do to stop me? That's my point! Nothing, under the current rules. So tell me WHY I should behave, and deal with CRAP from admins? Why should I put up with IPs harrassing me and stalking me? Why should I follow the rules, when Wikipedia will punish me, and allow the IPs to run wild? If Wikipedia won't take the product seriuosly, why should I? - BillCJ 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ON HIS OWN TALK PAGE: ANOTHER USER ASKING HIM TO STOP DELETES: Making major changes without any discussion to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given form twice in quick succession is vandalism, especially when one is on record as disagreeing with the consensus. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC) No, that's not vandalism - it's is disruptive tho. - BillCJ 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

After things have settled down, I will be more than happy to work with Stefanomencarelli. I will assist with him on translation resources and guide him away from the Aviation project.

I have no idea on how to help the individual that waits (like a cat outside a mousehole), to revert edits in an attempt to instigate emotional and negative responces, and then make comments and call in others as if he is truly trying to help. 209.220.127.162 11:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and your offer of assistance. I'm just beginning to look into the situation so I have no response yet. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check your email for information regarding the above commentary. FWIW Bzuk 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Got it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Email
You have a short email waiting for you. :-) Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Ali&#39;i 16:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR policy question
Could I invite you over to 3RR talk to hash out the whole user-space exception issue? Thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM Dalmatia decision breach
Hi Flo, I hope you won't mind if I turn your attention to the final decision of the Dalmatia ARBCOM, with respect to recent events. Now, snitching isn't my game, but I think that in this case I really ought to make an exception. With the final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: ) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page ). In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits. In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) you will find only one revert per week per article, and a thorough and honest discussion each time.

I will post this to your fellow arbitrators as well, hope none of you mind... DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 08:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the most part, Arbitrators do not take part in enforcing their decisions. Violations can be reported at Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Thatcher131 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, its just that they're pretty backlogged from what I hear, and with the ARBCOM decision only a few days old I thought it may be decent to give you a heads-up. Anyway, I'll post a report there, sorry. DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I've followed the discussion and do not feel that I have anything useful to add. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI
FloNight, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page
Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Ante  lan  talk  06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied elsewhere. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I add to an existing arbitration or just report this somewhere else?
Hi I saw the arbitration page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

As far as I can see I have nothing to do with that case, but I regularly come in conflict with "ScienceApologist" (BTW, I object to such a suggestive name). Recently I found that he started deleting information about which we had reached an agreement in the past (my side of the story: he keeps deleting peer-reviewed references, every time inventing new reasons to do so). And today I discovered that he apparently was giving himself assistance by means of a sockpuppet: Talk:Tired_light.

What is the most efective way to go about this? Should I add comments to the above-mentioned arbitration (and if so, on what page), or is it better to bring this up in another way?

Thanks in advance! Harald88 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Think that this was resolved before I returned and read it. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"
Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for a third opinion
I would appreciate it if you could please have a second opinion in reference to the arbitrition page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Article_Title_for_3rd_US_Infantry This particular case was in the motions of formal mediation, however a user had withdrawn from the discussion and the case was closed. Furthermore, the user was part of this mediation process, I strongly feel that he has particular bias towards this case. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry  I have elected to decline this user from participating part of the arbitrition board since 1.)  This user also was not directly involved in the case since he was merely an "outsider" looking in and does not have any subject matter expertise.  2.) This user did not present any case or "expertise" to the table of the debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:3rd_US_Infantry#Title_of_article -TabooTikiGod 06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noted your opinion. Thanks for taking the time to let me know your views. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Martinphi
Just a quick note that I've given him a one-week block for soapboxing and disruption over on Homeopathy, given he's already up for Arbcom over acting the same way on paranormal articles. I set it for a week as I didn't want to second-guess Arbcom rulings, adjust this as you see fit, and I'm also copying this to a couple other ArbCom members, so that I'm sure the committee knows and can judge on it. Adam Cuerden talk 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I'll follow up as needed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I said I wouldn't bother you guys again, except if something new came up. But it has:  I was just blocked (for a week) by Adam Cuerden, an admin who is not part of  WikiProject Rational Skepticism (Participants) or Wikiproject Paranormal(Participants).  The edit for which he blocked me was this, and I explain here.  This is an excellent demonstration of my complaint that if I am under the sanction which ArbCom is now voting on, I will be virtually unable to edit.  I hope you will consider my special circumstances.


 * I tell you this with confidence that you'll pass it on to any other ArbCom members who need to know. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI. I filed a block request at AN/I for violating the recent ArbCom decision. The responding admin left a note on Michael Price's talk page User_talk:MichaelCPrice. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is to inform ArbCom about violations, since this is my first experience with arbitration. Ovadyah 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply on AN/I. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge
FYI, you double-voted twice on his arbitration case here.  Sasha  Call   21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh... was just coming to let her know too. Maybe she just really, really wants those positions upheld. :-) --Ali&#39;i 21:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. ;-) I fixed them. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)