User talk:FloNight/archive 6

(no time stamp so not archived by werdnabot)

Is it too late?
Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the Sathya Sai arbitration. I have added new evidence and updated the workshop. I should have responded earlier but I was very busy with some personal issues. I request you to look at the new evidence and give me a fair trial. Thanks. [User:Wikisunn|Wikisunn]] 26th February 2007

Thanks
Thank you very much, I need all the help I can get, I am a slow learner. Take good care in the meantime. Bhaktivinode March 27, 2007

John Machemehl Article
As I am new to the wiki culture - as you can tell... I noticed that the John Machemehl article has now passed its 5 days of debate. Do one of us need to close it? Does it need to be an administrator? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks and take care. Bhaktivinode 2 April 200

Wiki Rules applied inconsistently? Seeking clarification
Note about this query in this section: This is more of a question seeking clarification from arbitrators / similar ranked persons on Wiki about Wiki rules rather than a complaint. I wanted to keep the query to the ArbCom decision talk page but if I can't get an answer there, please give me a reply either here on your talk page, or preferably, my talk page, thanks!

1. I notice that Samuel has been deemed incapable of promoting a viewpoint outside his activism and has an obvious conflict of interest in that sense, but don't Falun Gong practitioners also have a similar COI? Many of the pro-FGers did not even want to see a Criticism section. Now, they are only willing to see one that is heavily truncated and has been responded to by their Leader or Master. Isn't this an inconsistent application of the Conflict of Interest rule? (If not, pls explain)

2. Moreover, if users like Asdfg (pro-FG) are given a second chance and commended for turning over a new leaf and now appears to conform to Wiki rules, why shouldn't Tomananda be given that chance, and Samuel (who had 3, not 7 blocks btw, if overturned blocks are not to be counted)? I find it once again an inconsistent application of Wikipedia rules that anti-FGers must be banned yet pro-FGers have, at the very most, only been given a year's parole (except McConn). I also note with amusement that despite User:HappyInGeneral having declared a POV war previously on the FG discussion page, he can be found not to merit even a revert parole.

3. Arbitrator Fred Bauder also mentioned that the real flamers have not been sanctioned (e.g. User:Omido) so far so should this ArbCom decision be expanded to include these users? Or are arbitrators bound to only consider the users involved and mentioned in the ArbCom case?

4. I note from Fred Bauder that NPOV does not require excision of POV language. I accept that, but hope that he would expand on this point further, preferably by giving examples in this FG case. Moreover, if that edit I made was objectionable then does that mean Fire_Star's one (the version I reverted to) was also objectionable, or is it my edit in itself that was objectionable?

5. How exactly do we deal with unregistered users who vandalize Wikipedia + Wiki user pages? Note that there have been a series of anti-FG vandalism actions recently, which is curiously well-timed as they hardly existed before this ArbCom case, as well as the fact that there have only been numerous pro-FG vandalism actions before. See also the numerous times anti-FG and '3rd-party' users had their talk pages vandalized. So how do we prevent abuse of this, especially when banning IP addresses does little good to an organization that exploits the weaknesses of Wikipedia? (If you cannot answer this one, that is understandable, but if you have an answer that would be of great use)

Now just one suggestion:

1. Instead of revert parole-ing numerous users, how about simply revert parole-ing entire Wiki entries, namely the FG-related ones here? This would be the best way of preventing edit wars ESPECIALLY by unregistered users (or users exploiting this Wiki weakness), as has been supported by my relatively limited number of edits on the main Wiki FG-related entries (compare the edits I made + content I wrote on the pages' talk pages, compared to the actual entries themselves). Jsw663 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case
Hello, I see that you've voted in behalf of a revert parole for Yueyuen. Unfortunately, you have not indicated any finding of fact (such as edit warring), which might prevent the case from closing. This issue was specifically pointed out by Paul August in Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong/Proposed_decision. Could you do something about it? Thanks. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal
It would be helpful to me if you would explain why you voted to decline, so that I will have an idea about how I am still falling short of expectations and what I can do to get there. Everyking 07:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to give you my thoughts. I feel that it is in the best interest of all involved (you and the community) for the situation to remain unchanged for now. FloNight 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out
Other than being warned by ArbCom in his previous arbcom case (about misuse of admin tools) Zero has also been specifically warned by 2 admins not to take action against me. Once by Slim Virgin and once by Fred himself who suggested to him not to use ban as first measure against me and if he thinks there is a problem with my editing Fred told Zero to ask for help. (at that time Fred did not accpted Zero's claim about my edits)

There are few more admins who gave Zero such answer (Jayjg explained to him that my request for mediation is not an excuse to ban me) and Tom Harrison asked him to stop making PA against me.

These are all in the evidence however they were not interduced into the proposed decision. (like many other facts which are in the evidence) Don't you think this is highly relevent to this case ? How can I make sure the evidence is considered? I will accept any verdict as long as the process is fair. Zeq 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (PS I will have to accept it even if it is not fair:-)
 * Zeq, I will review the evidence. I have not voted on the FoF and Remedies because I was not sure that the wordings are correct. FloNight 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is all I am asking: to review the evidence. I have already addimted my wrong doing. This is the key evidence that I think is ignored (key word is "ask for it") : Zeq 06:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

few more links:, , , , , ,

sorry for taking more of your time. Zeq 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Truong
Could you please take a look at the edit history for that talk page? The logical person to deal with this is probably User:Sjakkalle but it looks from his talk page like he's on wikibreak. See also the notes at User_talk:SusanPolgar and User_talk:Linnell. Thanks. 75.62.6.237 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Flo, I think there's some background here, if it's the real Susan Polgar. I'll e-mail you. In the meantime, I suggest that her concerns be taken seriously. Musical Linguist 06:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at the email and see what can be done. FloNight 00:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Big Sister (brothel)
Hello, I'm about to file a Request for Comments on Big Sister (brothel) and would like to solicit your position statement on Talk:Big Sister (brothel). Thanks, AxelBoldt 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Heatedissuepuppet
Thank you for your comments. I opened an item on WP:AN/I and would appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * HIP has made some more comments at WP:AN/I that make it clear he has an agenda to attack me. I wonder if you could comment. I appreciate your support. Sparkzilla 09:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

message for you
I have left a message for you at user talk:JzG. --SockingIt 05:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holly McGuire
I'm a bit confused. Ms McGuire was recorded on audio and video offering sex for money and how that is not relevant to the main article is beyond me, let alone the talk page. Perhaps you would like to explain it to me? I would be grateful. I think you're mising the point of Wikipedia entirely in this instance (i.e. fluffiness and censorship) and I'm looking for other opinions from administrators on this matter as I don't think you are clear on this one for whatever reason.

Please advise.

--Magpie1892 8 Jun 2007 (UTC)

"Carrying the torch"
What is that supposed to mean? ATren 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * carry the torch per The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what it means. I wanted to know what you were implying. If you are implying that I have some agenda here, you are quite mistaken. I came to this case as a completely uninvolved third party, and I continue to pursue it because the evidence does not support any of the proposed findings (yes, I've examined it all, something the aribitrators should get in the habit of doing...).
 * It is incorrect and irresponsible for you to imply that I have alterior motives. ATren 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the implication is that you need to move on and worry about yourself, instead of hyping this case in your head fixating on it, doing nothing on Wikipedia but focus on this case, that in the end you have said all along has nothing to do with you. You've made your arguments. Why don't you now think about cleaning your own house and take down your blog focusing on User:Avidor and remove the advertisement of your off-wiki harassment of him from your User page? That would show you really are concerned about "heckling people" off Wikipedia. Believe it not, you are the only one who is doing very little to improve this project aside from regurgitating the same arguments over and over, taking on anyone who disagrees with you, when your own behavior is far less than exemplary. --David Shankbone 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UT
 * I'm sorry, but why do you keep bringing up Avidor? That conflict has nothing to do with this case, and your continued insistence on bringing it up in every discussion is getting tiresome. And, FWIW, if you are trying to run me off the project like you did to THF, you will find that will not work with me. I have infinite patience in dealing with editors who choose to attack the editor rather than debate the issue. ATren 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Procedural Inquiry
FloNight - I'm extremely sorry that the first message of the NewYear on your user talk has to be something of this nature, however I need to ask a seasoned admin a few procedural questions regarding a suspected sockpuppetry case that I have opened. In short form, the suspected puppet is claiming that the puppetmaster page does NOT belong to him / her, and has tagged it for deletion. As this page is source reference for evidence, its deletion prior to the acceptance, check and / or resolution of the sockpuppetry inquiry would, in my humble opinion, seem to negate the whole SOCKS issue. What should be done? Edit Centric (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look, Give me a bit of time to sort it out. FloNight (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten. Looking at it now. FloNight (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and removed the template, under guidance from the template its self. All I need to know now is just how long it will be before this gets picked up for review, so we can put this issue to bed...Edit Centric (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, removing it was correct. As for putting the issue to bed...good luck :-) I'll email you more thoughts about this later today. By the way, thanks for you help dealing with this. Take care, FloNight (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, it's a concern that I had, and needed to be reckoned out either way. Like I've stated before, if it turns out false, then all the better! If it turns out true though, then something definitely needs to be done. Edit Centric (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#ST47
Thank you for your suggestion. I was following the request of admin User:A. B. as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman and noticed social engineering on Talk:Knol. I do not know if I went at it the right way by bringing the matter to arbitration committee, but we should not be calling other editors Trolls, or any other labels, and I do not want to say them here or any other places! So as you can see my grievances are not about the revert of the edit, but about the admin derogative abuse of a junior editor. Igor Berger (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An arbitration case is likely premature. Rejecting a case does not mean that there is not an issue at all. It means that other ways of dealing with it are likely better for now. Giving him calm feedback on his talk page or by email might work. An conduct RFC if that does not work is usually the next step, okay. An arbitration case is the last resort only if the Community can not settle it with out our involvement. FloNight (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see RFC, honestly I do not even have intentions to do that, all I wanted to do is talk to the admin, but he just kept calling me a Troll, Troll. And to me the alias is very insulting.
 * He did not even bother to check why I started the petion on Talk:Knol. I was left alone here on Spam patrol, while everyone went away for Ney Year. Anon users where social engineering the article and I thought back to protect WikiPedia community and authority. Why do we need a petition when we are a consensus community! I just wanted to induce fear into the Spammers so they would stay away! I was protecting the Fort, while everyone went partying, and for that instead of talking with me and asking me why I started the petition, he labels me a Troll.
 * Please check my edit history as a new editor, yes I make mistake but I am nv\ever insulant or desripectful to my seniors, and always enter into a discussion not to turn the revert back but to learn how to do things the right way.
 * ST47 as an admin is really a bad role model for new editors who work hard to contribute to the WikiPedia project. I have no idea how I should talk to him, if he keeps calling me a Troll and breathing fire down my neck. Thank you,Igor Berger (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, the best solution is to walk away from the situation for now since you have made your feelings known. The Project is large and there are many other areas that can occupy your time in a way that is more fun. Editing here is suppose to be a leisure activity that bring pleasure so dwelling on the un-fun aspects can cause burn out. You or someone can re-visit the situation later if it is an ongoing problem. That is my best advise. Happy editng and Happy New Year. :-) FloNight (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sound like a good idea and I agree with you, but I am a Spam patrolman and will continue to do my work as a Spam patrolamn. He is also a Spam patrolman! I hope next time there is a situation that we face each other in the field eliminating Spam and protecting WikiPedia, he will show me courtesy and talk to me why I did what. I have no problem listening to him because he is my senior, and I will respect my seniors, but spend a fe minutes to talk! Thank you for your help and intevantion on my behalf to resolve the stale mate amiably. Igor Berger (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 13.
If you haven't already, I suggest you try to catch the film Trois Couleurs: Bleu which features it in a chorus. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-01t21:47z
 * Thanks for the suggestion, looks like something that would interest me. FloNight (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR Basboll
I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read here Please reconsider.--MONGO 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RfAr
Hi Flo, may I note tha ther is a substantive differnce between "1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could reasonably be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying."(emphasis added) and "1) Should Jim62sch make any comment of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature,..."? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be good from an enforcement perspective to have the language be consistent. Thatcher 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will don't see a major difference, but for the avoidance of doubt, as the drafter of the decision I will modify the enforcement wording as suggested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thank you both very much. Reasonably should save us all from potential misuse of the remedies/enforcement action.  I could explain the complete reasoning, but it would sound as if it were wikilawyering.  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Jim. I brought this to the attention of Newyorkbrad and he changed it. From your comments, it seems to be satisfactory. Glad that the case has closed and hope everyone involved can move on. Happy editing. :-) FloNight (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource and the public domain
Greetings. There is a discussion ongoing on at regarding Wikisource and the public domain. If you have any comments, they could be helpful. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented there. Glad to see you voicing your opinion about copyright issues there so we can all get on the same page. FloNight (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi there! You had a good Christmas and New Year?? hope things were well and good!

I've just been participating in the workshop at Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia and have made some suggestions, which, you can feel free to give some feedback on.

Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. FloNight (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Z-SG question
See question on closing here. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill answered. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page
Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, I'm still conducting a conversation about the proposed ruling. If you have an issue with specific editors, please work it out with them but don't close off discussion of an ongoing case totally, thanks. RxS (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think protection was a good idea (even though as admins more than a few of the involved parties can still edit it). The conversations taking place were serving no appreciable purpose, and it was inflaming the dispute on which the case revolves. I had thought to take it tp RPPP, but I figured they'd turn it down out of deference to the Committee. Avruch talk 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My conversation was perfectly civil and had an important point to make. RxS (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, your comments are still there and available to be read by the arbs. Cost/benefit on protecting the page weighs in favor of the benefits, unfortunately. Avruch talk 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: this edit note, I make the requested promise. Durova Charge! 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Flonight, I think protecting the talk page is going too far - maybe for a day, but not for 6 days or until the case closes. There are people who will want to make relevant and helpful comments, and will be able to restrain themselves. Protecting the talk page merely disenfranchises them. If any particular editors are being disruptive, warn and then block them. Do you really want people to be reduced to putting edit protected on Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision? Is there even an accepted place to put 'edit protected' requests for protected talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a conditional in the protection summary. Thatcher 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And that condition should be made visible on the page itself, not hidden away in the edit summary. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And a further point. Flonight might have considered leaving talk page messages for those who, if they agreed to restrain themselves, could lead to her feeling able to lift the protection. But Flonight has not left such messages. In lieu of that, I will attempt to move things forward by leaving talk page messages for all concerned, asking them to sign a section here on Flonight's talk page agreeing to abide by the conditional she laid forth in her edit summary. Once that is done, maybe Flonight will feel able to lift the page protection and replace it with one of those "talk page calm" messages? Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Flonight, I've just finished reading the threads at the talk page. It turns out that I agree with Giano that it is best not to add anything further, but this begs the question: If I had wished to say something, while the thoughts were fresh in my mind after reading that page, where could I have done so? Here? I am sure that people will want to comment on the proposed remedies as they develop, and I would hope that you would trust the community to be able to keep such discussion civil. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The alternative would be to ban Giano, Geogre, Bishonen and Phil from editing the case pages, on penalty of blocking, per the warning I originally posted on the workshop page, and then unprotecting the page. I'm not sure I will have sufficient attention to Wikipedia tomorrow to be able to monitor and follow through, though. I'll see what has transpired by (my) morning. Thatcher 05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it raises the question; there's no begging here. I would love to trust the community, self-selecting though it is, to keep discussion civil. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that's possible with that group of people. I was about to protect and blank the page myself. Mackensen (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or just take the whole thing in camera and sort out a complete decision and then post it (including votes in a set period of time) - then allow a bit of discussion on the talk page, allow arbitrators to change their minds as needed (eg. late evidence submitted or cogent talk page arguments), then close the case? Singling out four people would seem a bit harsh when arbitrators were also editing the page during this time. This may seem helpful to some, and terse and unhelpful to others. Giano was in fact the voice of calm here, Thatcher. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On one hand the proposed decision talk page is a courtesy of Arbcom; they could announce final decisions without allowing any comment, although that would provoke great howls of consternation as well. Of course the entire episode is eminently unhelpful to Arbcom in trying to evaluate their decision, but the regrettable business that started with Phil's unfortunate choice of words was winding down; then the editing warring began.  I'm concerned with edits starting at 20:22.  Editors who edit warred appear to include Phil, Lawrence Cohen, Geogre, Avruch and Van Helsing.  You are right that Giano and Bishonen were not involved in reverting the comments. Thatcher 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't make much sense of the mini-edit war between Geogre and Avruch. Geogre removed a comment by Phil, saying "don't edit war", and Avruch restored it (quite reasonably in my opinion, I think Geogre's edit was a mistake). Avruch's only other contribution was to add collapsable markers - don't think that counts as edit warring (I wonder where the following lie on the scale: reverting, blanking whole sections and pages, adding archive tags, adding collapsible tags), and if it does, Bishonen's removal of them should count. If it really mattered (and I don't think it does) I think Phil's heavy-handed removal of the thread, and Lawrence and van Helsing restoring it, are what really started it all. I'll admit that Geogre's contribution (slapping Phil with a careless undo) was far less helpful than Bishonen's (a firm request that the thread remain visible), and Giano's contribution (an appeal for calm) was yet a third response and the best of the lot. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Protect and blank the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision? That's the only fix you can come up with? With all the due respect and I mean that......you know, I've sat here for like 10 minutes not knowing what to say about that...I just give up...I really wanted to finish that discussion but it's gone out of me now. RxS (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My priority is to minimize disruption and somehow bring this case into harbor without the involved parties tearing each other apart. I am not especially interested in guaranteeing that uninvolved parties have had their say. I'm sorry but there it is. I have a responsibility to the community to minimize or eliminate disruption. I have a responsibility to the parties to review their evidence and actions, and to weigh matters as impartially as I can. That talk page helps me do neither, and was greatly inflaming matters. Mackensen (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes sir. RxS (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page should stay protected, for the same reasons it was protected originally. If you have some urgent new insight, there are other ways to make yourself heard. The talk page had become a locus for continuing the dispute, and that is not its purpose. Avruch talk 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreement regarding Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

 *  Notification of this section was made as follows: 16 people notified 

Following the protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, the undersigned (both involved and uninvolved) agree to make productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors, and hereby ask FloNight to please unprotect the page to allow civil discussion to continue.
 * 1) Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Geogre (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, except that I don't want to edit the page at all; I object to unwriting (Snowspinner) and trying to cover things up.  Seems to me that that warranted a warning. Meh. Protection is out, esp. when it's just one user breaking the rules.
 * 3) Of course.  Lawrence Cohen  14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't receive Carcharoth's message on my talk page (presumably he overlooked me because I had not contributed to the particular thread). However I was warned twice by Newyorkbrad concerning other edits on that page and that's enough to tell me that I must have said something inappropriate. My contribution to this is that I have ceased discussing the case on the talk pages, and have limited myself to one or two comments on the workshop supporting the proposal for a civility parole.  I don't want to ask FloNight to unprotect the page, however.  Some very false and damaging things have been said on that page, and I would rather that those who have made them would withdraw them publicly. They know who they are. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is a typical example of Carcharoth's good nature and common sense; however, the context corrupts the words. Flo's page protection was fine since people were getting unruly, but the conditions on unprotecting are too narrow and, in fact, just an extension of the muzzling placed on the community with regards to #admins IRC. To repeat what I said on the talk page, the proposed decision is a joke. Through their actions and inactions, the Arbcom is accepting David as Wikipeia's chief censor and propagandist, apparently based on secret evidence that none of us may see. The arbcom contains more than a few neutered halfwits. For the first few years, the IRC leadership was happy to sit out and watch the community struggle with #admins place. Now we've degenerated to the point where community discussion on this topic, when it asks hard questions or points out problems or tries to debate on a common form, is not tolerated. --Duk 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (parts copied from my response on Duk's talk page) I agree. I initially asked FloNight to unprotect straightaway and consider using blocks (or strong warnings) instead. I'm still very unhappy about the length of the protection - 6 days is far too long - I would have had no objection to a single day of protection. I was kind of hoping that lots of people would sign up there and FloNight would unprotect. I am also still unhappy that she put a condition in an edit summary, but then didn't actually go and tell the people concerned. It was more a protect and walk away action, and I felt I was clearing up afterwards. At least I managed to get the pp-dispute tag to point unprotection requests to FloNight's talk page. What I am hoping is that an uninvolved party will want to comment on the proposed decision and will turn up asking why the hell the talk page is protected - thus demonstrating that FloNight's protection is (unintentionally) suppressing legitimate input from the community on the matter. In essence, my case is "but other people use that talk page as well" . I also agree with you that this looks a lot like the #admins case repeating itself, with avenues for objection being heavy-handedly closed off in the name of "avoiding disruption". Sometimes there is a fine line between vigorous debate and disruption, but erring on the side of "suppressing disruption" can have a chilling effect on debate. Again, I have no problem with the arbitration committee coming to a complete decision in private and then posting it to allow discussion on the complete decision, but if you are posting the decision bit-by-bit and groping towards a solution, at least let the community help with that process and don't let the actions of a minority lead to talk pages being protected. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that I can fairly be asked to weigh in on this, given the degree to which I seem to be damned if I do, damned if I don't. In attempting to make a point about the needless hyperbole being employed on the page I used phrasing that caused reasonable offense, and caused a useless thread to develop. Upon retracting my wording, most of the participants in the thread also retracted theirs, and I figured, hey, the thread is in the history for anyone who wants to cite it as evidence, but it does no good for the case and I'll remove it. This met with objection, so I decided to just rescind my own comments. This, apparently, is also unacceptable. Who knew that a medium based on the ability to wholly and swiftly rewrite text would develop such a fetish for edifice and monument. In any case, I am hard pressed to agree to any shift in my conduct - I certainly do not promise to magically avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication, and beyond that I am unable to identify any action I took that was not in pursuit of reasoned, careful discussion of evidence and of the actual problems instead of the gotcha-style hit squad that the page has largely become.


 * In any case, I have found that the sun shines a little brighter and that the birds sing a little louder since the page is protected, and thus have no reason or desire to see it unprotected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, you may want to review WP:TALK. Specifically TALK. Removing comments made by others is not acceptable. Factoring out your comments might have been, but you should have left something indicating the changed context. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected
Because it's probably the right thing to do, I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties can behave themselves. If not, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced with blocks, as described in the warning I put at the top of the workshop when the case opened. For a while it looked like that warning was premature, then things started to go down hill. It's not too late to pull out of the death spiral that so many tendentious Arbcom cases seem to get in to when they've been open a long time. Thatcher 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please bring to Committee's attention
I posted this on the main IRC page. There is a fundamental problem with the entire weight of the proposed decision that no one has addressed yet. I posted it there as the talk page is locked. If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. Lawrence Cohen 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bring your comments to the attention of the rest of the Committee. FloNight (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Mitch32contribs 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help
Can someone please do something with this thing's posting? It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More evidence they're all BFP
here going after this "archenemy" Eschoir. This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. Lawrence Cohen 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC case proposed finding
There are no previous findings or remedies in arbitration cases involving me related to incivility or personal attacks. This is the first time the matter has been raised at arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you had something related to incivility in the past. My mistake for not looking at the specifics of your prior involvment in the cases. FloNight (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. There was this joint caution two years ago, in which at Aaron Brenneman's suggestion I agreed that my name could be added despite the absence of a formal finding of fact. Our debate on the workshop had become a little overheated. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Message for you on the Proposed Decisions talkpage
Bishonen | talk 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

New proposals
I know its late, but I offer some new thoughts at Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop. Thatcher 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility restrictions
Should it be uninvolved admins? Lawrence §  t / e  20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you intend this edit?
This looks like an unintended duplication of the page content, or something. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways
We were wondering why the Committee has been mostly silent about this case? Also, when do you believe that this case will be moved to voting? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing that right now. :) We have a draft of the case written on our private arbcom wiki that I'm going to review and see if it is ready to move on site. So hopefully soon. FloNight (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vote
You wrote:
 * I do not see the downside to making this official as opposed to relying on his good intentions

I agree on this (early on in the case I suggested a civility parole and my opinion hasn't changed). Having findings but no parole in this particular case would make it rather more difficult for me. I suspect that this remedy, passed visibly, would also make an end to this affair more likely. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my thinking also. Glad to see that we are in agreement that it would bring more benefit than harm in this situation. FloNight (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson arbitration case
I very much agree this was the right thing to do accepting this case. If I did something like he was alleged to have done, I'd probably be de-sysopped and/or blocked/banned.

However, on mu userpage, I've declared that I have a friend who edits from this IP address (albeit not very often!) - and since you're a Checkuser, you can indeed verify that! However, as is said, Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust.

Anyway... how's things?? --Solumeiras (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Amusing as it is...
...I don't think you really intended to write "I have always...discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of civility between users". --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) I fixed it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Carcharoth's comment, addressed to a person who, while technically a party to the case (he's on the list of those involved), is blameless:
 * This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"?
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

Wording of the "All parties cautioned" remedy
I'm in favor of the committee reaching consensus on who, precisely, this is addressed to, and a form of words that identifies them (this would of course include me because without my initial act of gross incivility this case would not have arisen). The words might be exclusive ("All parties" -> "User:A, User:B, User:C,..., and User:Z are strongly cautioned") or inclusive ("All parties" -> "All parties, especially User:A, User:B..."), whichever satisfies the committee best, but I do think a more specific remedy have more teeth, by making it plain exactly who the committee has its eyes on. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:WEA
I noticed your comment here. Could I ask you what you think about the role played by the other parties that joined the edit war? Specifically the people involved in the edit war laid out here? By the time you get to AzaToth's revert, it should have been clear to everyone that continued reversion was not productive. So my question is why did AzaToth, David Gerard, Betacommand, Irpen (joining Geogre and Giano) and Ryulong join in? Did they really think they were helping to calm the situation down? Part of the reason editors develop problematic conduct issues over several years is that they are not told early on what is and is not acceptable. Would you agree that a message needs to be sent that prolonging and continuing an edit war is never acceptable, and that people really should check the page history to see if there is an ongoing edit war? Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, it was unhelpful. In the heat of the moment, often users are not aware that their individual edits taken in larger context are making the situation worse not better. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would he stay?
I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Wikipedia. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Wikipedia. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Wikipedia culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee.

Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his essay - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to WP:AE that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. Risker (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline. Wikipedia is based on the idea that decisions will be made through calm collaborative discussion. It is impossible for that to happen when several editors raise the level of discourse to the point that most thoughtful people give up and walk away. Giano has a history of doing this. My goal is to re-focus his enthusiasm toward supporting our dispute resolution processes to achieve his goals. I opposed remedies that would stop his participation in Wikipedia policy making as I do value his opinion. As a high profile editor he needs to lead by example. Please encourage Giano to return as I feel that Wikipedia will be a better place with him here. Thanks for your thoughts. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You could have done more for him to be here, Flo. I am sorry you did not. I am not singling you out claiming this is all your fault. This is the collective fault of ArbCom (so, partially of you) + other members of supersikret Arbcom-L plus the smaller but more prominent part of #admins which has a problem with the concept of decency.


 * "our dispute resolution processes" fail miserably when dealing with these issues. Every single change with the #admins problem, the problem that the community started to deal with since the infamous Carnildo affair was achieved only when Giano demonstrated the corruption in the most dramatic way. When others tried different methods, nothing was happening. I know the Arbcom and Jimbo like it quiet and peaceful. But real problems being dealt with is more important than everything looking as if nothing is going on. --Irpen 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, do I have it correct? Are you accusing the bureaucrats of corruption over the Carnildo affair? --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a side question, Tony, but your suggested answer is a big oversimplification on what I think. --Irpen 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Wild accusations of corruption seem to be quite common these days.   Please think before you type. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, please read what I write and don't put words in my mouth. --Irpen 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read your clarification. You didn't intend any accusations of corruption.  Fine. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies‎
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks,. .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice on my user page, there has indeed been great care taken over this issue and the result looks incontrovertible. It's just unfortunate that it was so difficult to get information on the blocks, and as more points were raised my confidence in cu was shaken – glad to be reassured. For what it's worth I've suggested some procedural improvements at AN/I, these may already be normal practice. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a funny looking "house cat"


I like your dress, though. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal review
Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding. Everyking (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Highways
Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — O  bot  (t • c) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup

 * ;~) Tell me where it is, and I will be there. I'll be the one carrying the sledgehammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in participating, although I have no tools (only my words and thoughts) to bring along. Risker (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also interested, though I have less tools to work with than Risker. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer this question? Because this is a little ambiguous. --Irpen 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not my decision to make...first we need to decide how the guideline will be established...a work group is one option but there are others. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * " We " means who? --Irpen 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee has said that it has been requested to take on extra duties and has opted to consult the community concerning the manner in which it is to do so. I presume that FloNight refers to her fellow arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, you have this annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouthes demonstrated avidly just one section above.


 * No matter how much I am interested in your opinions on any and all matters, I asked Flo and please let her reply herself what she meant referring to "we". Thank you. --Irpen 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, but I notice that you had posed a couple of easily answered questions and appeared to be impatient for answers. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? --Irpen 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :)


 * Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we". FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Every bit of that seems wrong to me. I thought Jimbo simply said that IRC is under the control of ArbCom, not asked them to maybe think about somehow thinking about maybe getting involved.  Also, there are people who do not use it because they're ignorant (a reason for exclusion), people who don't use it because they do not agree with it in principle (a reason for inclusion, if a goal is to make it more acceptable to the community), and people who used to use it and left out of disgust (a reason to demand their presence, as they will be the ones who know what's wrong).  The idea that only the present users should have input is backwards.  The present users like it as it is, so of course they are going to dismiss everything else.  If there is a great problem with it, seek those who know the problems, not the ones who say, "Everything is fine: ignore those whiners."  This is assuming that ArbCom is interested in reason, logic, fairness, and getting this thing approved.  That may not be the case.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we start with what FloNight actually said? I guess all of these people are part of the "we" is, I think, intended to be inclusive.  I think you've misread it if you think it's intended to exclude any interested or disinterested party. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. --Irpen 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic. I'm interested in hearing form all interested members of the Community. If that did not come through in my previous post, I apologize. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why not let the "IRC Discussion Workgroup" function out in the open so that "all interested members of the Community", whose opinion you are "interested in hearing", can watch and, perhaps, contribute? Are you also interested in Utgard's opinion expressed above? Anyway, he provided it and pointed out to some, what seems to him, inconsistencies in your post. If his opinion is something you are also "interested to hear", why not straighten out those inconsistencies in your post and respond to Loki? Instead of your response, there was one more post from Tony who is great at explaining what everyone else said. --Irpen 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had also hoped and expected the consultation would be held in the open. Has anybody suggested that it should not? --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Discussion Workgroup redux
Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest another editor and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective. I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A working group was my idea but evidently did not draw support from other Arbitration Committee members. Yesterday, I received an email reporting that user conduct guidelines for #wikipedia-en-admins were updated. I did not participate in the decision and have not read the guidelines yet. I'm catching up on reading my email today. I'll update you with further thoughts soon-ish. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise? Giano (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And did past real or paper attempts to clean up the channel taken under the same cover of secrecy ever bring anything? Remember the over a year ago post by Fred to ANI that "arbcom finds unacceptable" bla-bla-bla thus appointing channel guards? And what? One of the "guards" was no one else but David Gerard!

Not surprisingly the attempt of correction taken within the same secrecy framework did not change much and the rampant IRC abuse went on for another year with the discussions occasionally arising onwiki. This culminated in the latest IRC case and so much bru-ha-ha and just when the case was closing and some were trying to claim that IRC learned the lesson this kicked right in. I have not heard either from Moreschi or from Dmcdevit, neither an explanation nor an apology after my request. Neither I've heard of their being sanctioned. And who would sanction them? Dmc is a chanellop himself! The only reaction to my request was that my post itself was immediately discussed (within minutes after I posted it and, yes, at the very same channel). Interestingly, the main subject of that discussion whose participants know who they are was the "leak" rather than the abuse itslef.

And, btw, another channelop (Mackenesen) whose duty is supposedly to investigate the incident upon learning about it was at the channel during the discussion. So, he learned of the incident and did nothing but more talk. Again, no investigation, no sanctions and no attempt to contact me. So, it is same usual. Abuse continues, some members of establishment take part in it and others in the establishment mildly disapprove and say "A" but never saying "B". And now with this new "update" things would change for better all of a sudden. Sigh.

"Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?" indeed, Giano. --Irpen 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very sad that flo's attempt at open discourse has been ignored and that the irc mess not be handled appropriately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since reading Irpen's post here, I contacted FT2 about the new guidelines and Dmcdevit about Moreschi's conduct in channel. I suggest that you contact both of them with your concerns. Both are interested in cleaning up the channel and working toward that effort. I'll continue to push for more oversight of the chan ops and a review of channel discussion to make sure that the channel is being used to enhance administrators on site work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please don't trouble yourselves, no one beleived a word of it anyway - did you? Giano (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * my expectations were met, but not exceeded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, Moreschi and secretly reached solution through "good ombudsmanship"
Flo, you seem to not understand what took place in the incident in question if you suggest contacting no one else but Dmc in order to address it. Dmc was complicit in the affair and now you suggest that he is the proper person to decide upon the actions?

And the next day Mackensen knew about it too. As soon as I asked Moreschi to explain oneself the very next minute (literally) Ryan posted the diff to #admins which started a discussion. You think the discussion was about the abhorrent behavior of Moreschi and Dmc? Not very much. Mostly it was about the "leaks". ("   honestly guys, who keeps passing logs out of this channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Your_conduct_at_.23admins")

And Mackensen was online during that discussion. Did it help? We had already two level-30 channelops aware of the situation and one of the two actually made it happen. Within 3 days or so, more channelops became aware and still nothing. When Mackenses found out, he just asked around a little but was not too persistent and did not attempt to contact me or anyone else. If he chose to not act on it or inform me, I have to say that the system remains broken.

I found this out by pure accident. I have no certainty that it does not go on. And Mackensen and other ops being made aware of the incident had a duty to act without my further urging anyone. There has been enough time by now.

This whole thing of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such things as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, Mackensen had to act vigilantly upon it after finding something out even purely by accident through being at the channel when Ryan posted the diff. Otherwise, it is all meanigless.

Same with checkuser: If checkuser logs are only available to checkusers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit enquiry, and therefore there is no public liason function for the ombudsman to perform.

Whoever is entasked with enforcing the rules over something where the logs are closed, has to do so pro-actively. Otherwise, it is a meaningless function since the logs are considered private

And last but not least, I am by far more concerned by the conversation itself being held behind my back by the sneaky folk than by the word "bastard" which does not worry me on its own, as I have seen worse and I know too well about the manners, faith and intellectual honesty in those quarters. I also know what they think of myself and it does not bother me too much.

And now the claim that everything is "fixed" is being made again. And how is it fixed? '''It is fixed by modifying the guidelines "through a discussion". And what discussion? The discussion at... #admins'''. Ironic, isn't it? --Irpen 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked FT2 to follow up with you about your concerns. He has access to the logs and played a large role in establishing the new guidelines for the channel. I'll follow up with both of you to see if your concerns are addressed. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Flo but there is much more to it.

First, suppose that I did not know about this incident and did not ask anything from anyone. Would anything have happened at all? See above about the impossibility of real oversight if its function is given to the regulars of the channel with the sikret logs.

Next, by accident the channelop already knew that something happened from my post at the Moreschi's talk. Still nothing for the whole month.

Next, how are we supposed to believe that something changes this time as the "change" was discussed only by the channel's regulars? Mackensen, on the channel the next day, asked whether anyone can provide him a log. No one was willing to. Did he ask me? No.

And if, I am speaking hypothetically now, you and FT2 take this particular incident close to heart, pursue it to the end and expunge Moreschi from #admins and Dmcdevit from both #admins and Arbcom-L, where he should not be in the first place, how do we know that next time this would be addressed by the existing system? Why can't this plague be dealt in an honest and transparent way and by the community who this concerns directly. How many more times the IRCers would be telling us that everything is finally "all right". How many more editors like Giano, Bishonen and Ghirla are to be expunged? --Irpen 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I should not be regarded as an active chanop; I have little enough time to devote to this project as it is without having to referee these disputes. It's a task even more worthless and thankless than sitting on Arbcom. As an aside, Giano appears feisty and vigilant enough for an "expunged" editor. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackensen, you were an active channelop at the time as when the incident was discussed at #admins you said so yourself offering "a cookie to whomever sends a full unredacted log covering the incident in question" and adding "to be clear, I'm asking as an op". You post above does not add up to this. --Irpen 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was, and I did in fact get a log, which confirms that Moreschi came in channel, said stupid things despite attempts by others to restrain him, then left again. I don't find giving civility warnings useful, so I lent my support to reforming channel access and overall standings. This, however, came at the same time I grew busy in real life, and I found I had little energy for the task, which I've left to others. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately your summary of the incident is a pity one. I have also seen the log and saying that Dmc's role was "restraining" one is a big stretch. He was no less (IMO more) insulting even if he did not use such rude words.

But never mind, Mackensen, there was no hope on my end that the secret procedures can be successful in tackling the secret wrongdoing. And I did not hope that you would do anything either from seeing you in the past.

This is just an additional demonstration that the system based on the assumption of good ombudsmanship of chanops themselves does not work and cannot work. And past years demonstrated that any attempts of reform failed to bring a meaningful change when the reforms were undertaken within the same secrecy framework where the wrongdoing lies. Reform proposed and discussed secretly behind the closed doors by selected few who has been on the channel all this time does not and won't look credible. --Irpen 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the repeated statements by yourself (and others) that you had no faith in the process or those involved was indeed a great help in trying to grapple with the situation. I wish you luck in dealing with it. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did not have much expectation that you would handle the incident properly. You said above what actions you took and what conclusions you made. And wasn't I right?

As for my "faith" in general, please do not put words in my mouth. I have no faith that the problem of secretive wrongdoing can be tackled by secretive means. This is the only thing that I've said. Nothing about "faith in the process" in general. I have a great faith that the problem can be addressed if "grappled" in an open and transparent way. Note that this latest claim is made that the "consensus" that will "fix" #admins has been achieved through a "discussion" at ...#admins.

Note how many past attempts to deal with the complicity through open means have bean thwarted and guess why we are still there. As usually, of course, someone is now saying (again) that this time the situation is finally under control. Remember the Fred's announcement -teen months ago? Remember Arbcom's pronouncement one month ago? Right! Exactly when Moreschi and Dmc had that beautiful discussion. --Irpen 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick clarifier on the above. Following the above being passed to me, I looked back in the channel logs. This is what I found.


 * One user, Moreschi, was angry, and exasperated at the choice he did not agree with, of who was appointed to the working group. In that context he stated in the channel a month ago on February 7, his upset at the appointments, expressed his concerns, and gave his apprehensions about the impact of appointing a specific user in an uncivil (short outburst) manner. Dmcdevit and a couple of others countered this without drama, the matter was over in a few lines as best that log shows. More importantly, not one other person on the channel endorsed or supported that negative statement -- the channel in general on inspection, functioned exactly as was best. It did not analyze (and thereby perpetuate or fuel) the drama, it did not support it. It decided it was unworthy of discussion. It let one or two users do the talking why it was wrong, and the rest either ignored it as a brief outburst quickly dropped, or commented that drama wasn't wanted and to let it go. Moreschi himself dropped it there minutes later, and is not in the habit of making such outbursts there. It was not raised again that way, nor has Moreschi commented on it in any way or spoken uncivilly there on any other matter since. Given that 100% is not attainable in any medium, it is fair to say that this was in fact handled well, that every single channel users with one exception acted appropriately in the channel when it happened, and that one user got the hint and quickly dropped it.


 * You may have concerns in future on a matter to do with that channel (which is not outside the bounds of possibility). I accept that there are differences whether it should exist or not, be public or not, is appropriately representative or not. But in terms of actual conduct there, a fair number of independent users can usually review what went on and see if the action was seriously out of line.


 * I will add - although not asked - I have also checked out other statements at other times of recent incidents, and in most of them, the representation on-wiki does not conform to the actual channel dialog as it took place. I accept that this information is not public and therefore perhaps frustratingly, cannot be verified in the way that on-wiki discussion can. Then again, off-wiki chat such as email, irc, and other forums, has never been scrutinizable that way, and technically, often cannot be. The wiki-norm is more that all adverse matters and problematic behaviors, are to be "left at the door", and repeating breachers of norms may be warned or sanctioned. Whether that's right or not is a matter of user philosophy. I have stated my reasons why it works in the recent RFC, and note that people will talk - it's better to have a place where 50 or so admins observe and keep a good standard (which it has had in general at least equal to the wiki for quite some time) and scrutiny, than fragmented "behind the scenes" chat between smaller cliques. At present, any admin at all of any viewpoint can join that channel, which since the action taken in 2006, has consistently proven quite successful as a technique. FT2 (Talk 16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC Admins
Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel. Please reply as soon as possible. To the nearest ten will do. Also could you explain precisely what changes have been implemented following the case and your declared intention to change the way the channel operated. Thanks. Giano (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to relay your question to FT2 in case he does not see it here. As noted above on my talk page, FT2 is best person to contact for information about the #admins channel since he is/was actively involved with modifying the channel guidelines and access to the channel. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is so difficult about the question? You go there, you are an Arb, don't the Arbs discuss these things? Please don't be evasive. You were one of those so keen to accept the IRC case, now please be equally keen on some of the reslolutions. Giano (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FloNight doesn't go there "as an arb" (which implies "in a formal role as an arbcom member", eg to take a formal arb role in the channel, as opposed to "an admin, who also happens to be an arbitrator, visiting the channel"). Nor do I, nor do any of the arbcom users who are active on IRC. On an occasion if/when we might, we'd probably say so, but that hasn't happened yet that I know of. Flo is there as an admin with higher level channel access, which she may or may not use on any given occasion, and the same is true for other users by and large. The complete list of users correct as of a week or so ago is here, along with instructions for generating a list that is accurate up to today. Most of those on it can be tied back to their Wiki accounts, allowing you or anyone with an interest to do the work of adding up admins or non-admins, who is interested by the question. There is no guarantee FloNight is, and whilst she has a say in handling of conduct issues there (like all users) she is not in any sense a "manager" nor responsible for the user list management. As for changes, please see the rough summary here which may help as a basic starting point (but is more a note than a formal resolution of any kind).


 * Best, FT2 (Talk 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the "best," Please just answer my question, as Flo seems to have lost the power of speech. How many non-admins remain, and what changes have happened? Giano (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me simpify this for you Flo - beyond Tony Sidaway (or "waiting for a girlfriend" or whatever he is currently calling himself) have any other non admins been removed? Have, indeed, any changes at all been implemented? How difficult a question is this for you? Giano (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) See above, it's answered. FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I. Old decisions on channel access have more or less been "grandfathered" in; the issue of non-admin access is shelved by common agreement by and large, at the moment. The user list is available, and linked above, and you have access to it as does anybody who wishes, to check the issues that you feel matter.

Changes have also been described too (also linked above). Please see the above links. Whilst there is a learning curve on it, the intentions and critieria are good ones and what Ive seen, have broad support and the possibility to help in the few cases where a problem might not have been handled as well before. Of course nothing's perfect, so it goes without saying there will be issues, but broadly I've reviewed a number of the last 9 months' incidents and found quite often the reported incidents were frequently misreported in respect of accuracy, completeness, or neutral description.

As examples of changes that you might consider important: this is the first time it has been explicitly stated that IRC is there specifically to support the wiki (anti-divergence measure, learning from Ezperanaza)... that some decisions cannot just be made on whim but must have multiple review... the handling of certain on-channel incidents to reduce over-reaction... the ruling out of certain other actions to reduce abuse... clear delineation on core standards expected... who and how to appeal chanel op abuse or have a problem reviewed if there is a concern... etc. These are all newly agreed, and have strong support. What will be best is to find that they help in the exceptional cases they were designed for, for the rest of the year.

Finally, note this is an internal channel guide. It is an agreement between irc users of mutual expectations on the channel. As such it is not an on-wiki matter, nor a matter for users who don't use IRC. As the saying goes, what happens off wiki is not consensus for what happens on-wiki. That en-admins has an internal agreement does not per se affect, supersede, or change on-wiki matters. Actions by admins and non-admins on-wiki are still down to individual admins decisions and accountability. What has been done is to clarify and in a way, codify, that there is a clear understanding in the channel too, of major areas of usage and approach, and what some of those are. FT2 (Talk 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Giano, the user list of the channel has been made non-private and may be accessed from any IRC client. A reasonably up to date list is here. Thatcher 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FGS! has Flo. or any of the Arbs, implemented or overseen any of the changes advocated as a sop to the community at the end of the IRC case - yes or no? Giano (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, we've set up channel guidlines that all people who use the channel must now abide by. If you want to look, please do so here. The IRC case highlighted a few problems with the channel, one of the more serious concerns was plotting going on in there. I can tell you that the channel ops are working proactively to stop anything that could even be slightly seen as talking behind other users backs. I for one have talked to a number of users when there has been a mild concern and it has done the trick so far. The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Flo has clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication will one of you please answer - how many ex or non-admins remain in the channel? Giano (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That above is just so outrageous that I cannot reply in few words. But for now a quick remark on the last sentence:
 * "The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave."

Not true. Do we need to go to a specific detail? We can if this is denied. And this non-truth makes debunking the rest simply redundant. --Irpen 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was aware that we made it perfectly clear what was acceptable and what wasn't in the channel and if users don't abide by that then of course we'll remove them. With regards to your non admin question, I think that there are currently two users who have access to the channel that are former admins who were desysopped. There are a couple of others that hold other positions of trust with the foundation such as board members.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How many and who? Giano (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This may not be the complete list, but going off this list, there's Betacommand and Mercury that are former admins who can't just ask for their bit back and with regards to other non admins, there's; Werdna (developer), Guillom (steward and OTRS contact), Alphax (commons sysop), Datrio (steward), pfctdayelise (commons sysop), someWiktAdmin (wikt admin), Vishal (ex WMF employee) and wiki_blue (ex WMF employee). I think that's it, but I can't be 100% sure after just a quick look at the access list.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now was that so painful? had I wanted to draw teeth I would have studied to be a dentist. Now I am also in possession of many logs which don't quite bear out your earlier statemnts concerning reform, but for now I'm going to bed. Hopefully we can continue this fascinating conversation in the morning, and then poor Flo, who was anxious to defend the now deleted IRC page can be restored to good voice and join us, because I've one or two more question sfor her, if you will allow her to speak. Giano (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

re your comment at Giano's talkpage
I have no idea what is precisely being discussed, but if it involves putting together a group (work/discussion/coffee tasting/whatever) regarding #Admins then I would like to confirm that I am still keen to participate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well?
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Help to calm down nationalism
In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats (user:Kubura, user:Zenanarth, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks.--Marygiove (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo at RFAR
I think you missed a "not". { —Wknight94 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out. It certainly was a mistake. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests
Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG
Hi FloNight. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis. Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as ). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses ). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support. Regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to take our ruling to heart and reconsider your approach to editing. As mentioned on the case talk page, the Committee thoroughly evaluated your contributions against our core content policies and felt that there were problems. Our independent review of your content additions shows that you need to use more caution when interpreting the texts compared to the sources cited. Your comments about users are not helpful and I ask you to use less inflammatory language when discussing their contributions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biography of living policy
Is that a slight typo in your edit over at RFARB? I didn't know our policies were living and had biographies? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC
I know you have ignored me on IRC. You probably will ignore this. I will take it as such unless you respond to this. I am very tired of some arbitrators non-responsiveness.

Simpler things (like a checkuser and subsequent indefinite block) and two arbitration cases among other things have been unsuccessful in resolving this problem. Hence the case.

The harassment have been ongoing since before you registered your account.

-- Cat chi? 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NRHP; The Hunt-Morgan House
Hi FloNight -- Welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member. :) I browsed The Hunt-Morgan House, an article in your recent contributions.  It's a nice article.  However I got puzzled by how it could have a NPS webpage yet not have a NRHP REFNUM.  I suspect there is something general that I do not understand and I have posted a question about it in the Talk page of NRHP, referring to this article.  Hope you don't mind.  Please feel free to chime in there, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, if you like, too.  And welcome again.  cheers, doncram (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your kind comments. I will respond there about the information that I've learned about this property. User:FloNight talk  12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened to the article?--Appraiser (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to Hunt-Morgan House and deleted the re-direct. Sorry for the confusion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. — О  бот  (т • ц) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification in IRC case
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
Was told you were the one that should have a look at this from Tony Sidaway (now calling himself Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The). He calls a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" in an edit summary, and then "plays dumb" as to why that could have been offensive. Bellwether B  C  15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Left civility reminder. Let myself or another administrator know if the problem re-occurs. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's responded at my talk, saying that his interaction with me the other night (when I tried to get him to see that calling a respected contributor's edits "Nedspam" was unconstructive) "surreal." I'll leave it for you to respond to. I have nothing further to say to Tony, as he's continuing to "play dumb" as to why people responded to to his edit summary, and I have no use for sophism. Bellwether B  C  02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's now baiting me at my talk. I'll leave it up awhile, for your perusal, then delete. Bellwether B  C  03:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sydney
Thanks for unblocking my user name (at least i think it was you) anyway, you have been so helpful that i wanted to ask you about something. If you have time (and im sure ur busy) would you go to Asia and Europe the population counts are inacurate. For example, it says that European Russia is 142 million people. European russia is actually 100 million, asian russia (siberia) is approx 42 million in population. The Asia article says that Asian Egypt (sinai desert) has 80 million people. Well, the entire country of egypt has 80 million people. The AFRICAN part has about 80 million the asian sinai has only about 1 million people. Plus, the population counts are all from 2002 when there are 2007 population counts available (such as if you click the actual country link itself, it gives a higher population.)

Here's my problem. I am very new to wikipedia and do not know how to edit the colorful sections that list the populations. How do you do that? Or, better yet (since youre an administrator, maybe you could help me i'll give you the links to prove the real population counts if you can edit it for me. It's up to you. Well, thanks. Could you maybe respond on my user page instead of your own, if that's okay. Well, thanks. If you don't want any part of this assignment, just say so. I'll ask someone more interested in that particular subject. Mayday2010 (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User Page
Hi FloNight. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent
Flo, you clearly have your head screwed on - excellent comments and much appreciated.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But sadly nothing changes, when one wants an answer Giano (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in a meeting so short answer.
 * In all honesty, that post looks more like a comment or rhetorical question than a request for clarification, but I will answer about issues related to harassment that might occur in the channel.


 * The Arbitration Committee does make ruling about harassment and stalking of editors by our editors. If blatant harassment occurs in #admins, I expect that the chan ops would take swift action to remove the user and send ArbCom the logs. Less obvious harassment can be brought to the attention of chan ops and ArbCom informed later as well. Chan ops need to learn the details to know if harassing outing is happening. On site discussion is expected to back up all on site actions, such as blocks for harassment or legal threats. I hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing rhetorical at all, it seems the Arbs etc want the IRC question deliberatly left ambiguous and vague, while on other sites, such as WR, IRC Admins, such as Ryan, can jump in with both feet and ban at whim. I don't think you can have this both ways. You don't think "bastard bitch from hell" is harassment? - Just look at the trouble i had to go to before that one was acknowledged. Giano (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has ruled here, here, and here that serious misconduct by editors and admins that occurs off site but is directly related to Wikipedia can result in on site sanctions. Freenode also has policies related to their channels, including one about reporting criminal activity. These issues are handled on a case by case basis by administrators, chan ops, and the Arbitration Committee. If misconduct occurs in the #admis channel then it should be dealt with as stated in the guidelines. I find that comment to be very unkind and understand why you took great offense. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to hear it. So why was I sanctioned and Master Sidaway (or whatever he is currently calling himself) merely asked to enter voluntarily into some sort of strange bizarre agreement to be sort of sanctioned, but not quite? I'm sure you can see why so many have lost all faith in the Arbcom. He was the cause of the IRC case, but I was sanctioned, the page edit warred over is now deleted, and the Arbcom is left looking stupid. I think I have yet to call anyone a "bastard bitch from hell" on this site, any site, or real life come to that. Funny old world isn't it, especially when those copncerned with IRC, such as the Arbcom, are in control. Giano (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am truly wondering if the Arbcom are aware of the contempt in which they are currently held by so many editors . They obviousy don't care very much - after all, why should they? Giano (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I too wonder about that. Especially since that voluntary arrangement for Anticipation the New Arrival of a Lover's Tony is not even being enforced. Bellwether B  C  22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to do here guys, but can I suggest that pushing one arbitrator is not going help you gain your desired outcome. If there's concerns that a remedy isn't effective, take it back to WP:RFArb - arguing on Flos' talk page isn't going to help anyone.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no point, obviously, Ryan. Nothing's going to be done about New Lover's Anticipation of the Tony's Arrival. Bellwether B  C  22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the token "arranged sanction" of "waiting for a whatever" which he was kind enough to agree to was just another sop to the community, as was the Arb's charade of a vote to look onto IRC to disguise the fact that the case was accpepted with no grounds in the hope of getting rid of me. Well I'm still here and the Arbs look even more ridiculous and clueless than before. They have brought this on themselves, and I have no sympathy for them. Giano (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This I'm beginning to understand: there is a distinct unwillingness to get the "hands dirty" on the current version of the arbcom. The complete unwillingness of two of our most active arbs (Brad & Flo) to support even a reminder to ST47 not misuse his tools during a dispute (as he clearly, without debate, did during the Betacommand kerfuffle) has opened my eyes to the way things are. The lack of willingness todeal with IRC/Tony/the mess that goes with it is just a further example. Bellwether B  C  01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand 2
Flo, I would just like to draw your attention to my post here, which are regarding the Betacommand and editors urged proposal currently under consideration at the case's proposed decision. Thanks and regards, Anthøny  20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User:70.114.38.167
Hi FloNight,

Since you blocked this user previously, I wanted to let you know that the user is back, and doing the same thing. I've just posted details at AN/I. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Hello,

I am grateful for your lengthy reply to my post. Would you be willing to discuss all 10 Proposed principles I submitted? I think it can really help us if the ArbCom rules on them, pro or con. &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The block of Counter-revolutionary
I know that you follow the participants in 'the Troubles' from a distance, including myself, but I should be grateful if I could please draw your attention to this case. Arising out of a discussion on Alison's Talk page, User talk:Alison, Counter-revolutionary was subsequently blocked here: User talk:Counter-revolutionary. You will see that I have commented at the end of that latter discussion, and those comments broadly set out my position.

Subsequently, I have returned to both Admins involved in this block with requests for further information concerning the Check-user evidence - what a lawyer would call the forensic evidence - which seems to me to be both (a) the only evidence against this editor; and, (b) rather scanty at that. You can see my requests here: User talk:Alison and User talk:WJBscribe, and you will also note that they have both been ignored.

Under the circumstances, please can you have a look at this case. It appears that Counter-revolutionary did intend to petition regarding his own unblock, but did not use the template (which, I suppose, would have brought in a neutral Admin to review the whole situation).

As always, thank you for your time and help in this matter. Major Bonkers (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so much as they've been ignored, Major, as that I've been busy and have been away the best part of the weekend. Furthermore, Counter-rev and an arbitrator have been having ongoing discussions via email which I'm not going to go into right now. It's very much an ongoing matter - A l is o n  ❤ 12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alison, is correct. During User:David Lauder's ban review, I first noticed the Counter-revolutionary account. Per my notes at least one other arbitrator also noticed the Counter-revolutionary account during their own independent review of David Lauder's ban.


 * Today I reviewed my own notes, my independently done checkuser from April 2008, private comments of other arbitrators (both recent and going back several months), on site comments by various accounts and other checkusers, and email correspondence from various accounts. It is my conclusion that the Counter-revolutionary account has been used abusively based on both checkuser evidence and editing patterns. Based on my independent review of the situation, I full support the indefinite block of Counter-revolutionary. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. At the risk of being obtuse, please could I just ask a couple of questions to get to the nub of this:


 * Are you saying that the anonymous vandal who created and used the User:Renamed user 20 account was definitely Counter-revolutionary? If that conclusion is based on the Check-user evidence, why is it (per this discussion) that two Admins felt that the evidence was not strong enough to support a block, but that a third one did?


 * What is the relevance of the other discussions that you have had about this? So far as I can see (User talk:Alison and from the contribution log) the vandal account made three (one subsequently 'oversighted') edits on June 28th.; QED, how do your discussions in April have anything to do with this?


 * When you refer to the abuse by the Counter-revolutionary account (ultimate paragraph, penultimate sentence), that is a reference back to the User:Renamed user 20 vandal rather than anything else? If not, in what other way has the Counter-revolutionary account been 'used abusively'?

Sorry to come back to you, and thank you very much for your prompt response. Major Bonkers (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire editing history of Counter-revolutionary plus overall checkuser evidence related to Counter-revolutionary shows abusive use of the account. My initial review in April 2008 showed connections to other accounts that made abusive sock/meatpuppetery the most likely relationship between this account and others. Recent activity confirms the relations. To my knowledge, every checkuser or arbitrator that has reviewed this account has now reached the same conclusion. Given that conclusion, an indefinite block is appropriate. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of trouble squaring a circle. CR gets blocked on a body of circumstantial evidence including simply knowing other users who have since been blocked, yet User:Vintagekits is simply on "parole" despite years of abusive and unacceptable behaviour?  This does not strike me as natural justice or indeed equitable.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to come back, yet again, on this issue. I can recognise that I'm flogging a dead horse but despite that I think that it is important to set out what ought to be some basic principles.

When these sort of allegations are raised against a long-standing contributor, which are so obviously out of character, I would consider it reasonable to raise the issue with him first rather than reach instinctively for the 'ban-hamma'. In this case, 'confirmed by check-user' actually means that the check-user links between the accounts is no better than 'likely', and is based (a) on geographical proximity and (b) on temporal lack of proximity; ie. the known and the vandal's accounts were not editing simultaneously. (I just pause here to point out that in this separate case, entirely the opposite view was taken; editing at the same time is evidence of 'sock-puppetry'.) Similarly, corroborated by a number of independent checkusers simply means that the original dubious results have been replicated.

I'm not at all sure that you have actually reviewed what Counter-revolutionary has posted as an 'appeal' on his Talk page. In your response, on Alison's Talk page and immediately above, you do not refer to it all, simply to his contributions and the check-user. As I read it, rather than dealing with his appeal from the original block and the evidence upon which it was based, you have actually disregarded all that and instead come up with another, separate, reason for blocking him.

I am also disturbed by references to your notes and other correspondence with Admins; there is clearly no way that any editor can formulate a response when the evidence against him is kept secret, his responses are not listened to, and there's a whole discussion, which he's not privy to, going on in the background. I am prepared to accept that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but on the other hand it is surely desirable that these banning decisions are seen to be demonstrably fair; unfortunately, in a way that the present case clearly isn't.

Is it possible, please, for some brief explanation of why the vandal account seems to have caused such offense to be given? Again, from what I can see, two of these edits seem par for the course: I have seen much worse, and can provide the diffs to demonstrate, being posted by other editors under their own names. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Major Bonkers, you asked me to look into the situation and I did. I spent over an hour reviewing my notes and looking at more recent on and off site activity. I came to the conclusion that User:Counter-revolutionary is properly blocked. Considered separately, the contributions and the checkuser evidence shows highly likely abusive use of the account. Considered in totality with other evidence, the finding of abuse is strong.
 * Per the request of the David Lauder account and other users, iirc including yourself; several arbitrators reviewed David Lauder's ban. We took our time reviewing the evidence trying to see if the David Lauder account could be allowed to return. The discussion was already wrapping up when the latest incident happened. An indefinite block of the Counter-revolutionary account would have been a likely outcome of the discussion. After the latest incident, an indefinite block on the account is absolutely appropriate.
 * The routine method for dealing with vandal socks is quickly and quietly undoing the on site damage done by the vandal sock account and then ignoring them. Admin and checkusers handle these situations every day. I definitely think that is the best approach to use in this situation.
 * It is disappointing that person behind the User:Counter-revolutionary account abused the good will of other editors by using this account and other accounts against policy. For user's such as yourself, I feel really bad that this has happened. Try to take on board the idea that this account's public persona is one persona, and that the person behind the account is acting in ways that is abusive on several levels. We all were giving them a fair shake, and unfortunately we all got burned in the process. Let's not let the most divisive among us, pull the rest of us down, okay. Think about what I have written for a few days, okay. I have some other stuff I need to attend to on site. This includes starting some articles for images that my husband and I took over the past 6 weeks. Please do not think that I'm trying to prematurely brush away your concerns. In this particular instance, I think that it is best for you to try and absorb the idea that strong abuse happened before we talk more. Let's touch base again in a few days, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you stop messing about and tell us all exactly what the fantastic levels of abuse amount to in real terms. Is there a problem with User:David Lauder's and/or User:Counter-revolutionary's serious and many contributions to the project? Yes or no. If the contributions are OK, why not outline how and/or who they have actually abused, as said in real terms. Because abuse is a strong word. If its just procedural or they broke rules they may not have been fully aware of, why not say so? In addition, you might explain to us all how and why they were 'targetted' if their article contributions were satisfactory. Was someone stalking them? Is that not a form of abuse in itself? Given that User:Vintagekits has been blocked over 20 times for fairly serious WP 'crimes' and given that User:GianoII has been blocked a staggering 45 times it falls to arbcom to have the decency to explain just what has happened which makes absolute throttling bans on DL and C-R so utterly essential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the above comment was posted by the David Lauder account, ✅ by checkuser but somewhat self-evident, the third-party self-references notwithstanding - A l is o n  ❤ 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, self-evident to those of us that are familiar with the user. Was good to confirm for others reading my talk page and not aware. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of being arrogant why not answer the questions as put? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.60.113 (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)