User talk:FloNight/archive 7

hi there,
would you pls send me an e-mail when you return?

thx,

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Email
Thanks for your response, FloNight. Please enjoy your wikibreak! Rockpock e  t  15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Matewan NHL and WV/KY RHPs
Hi FloNight, thank you for chiming in at wt:NRHP! I'm happy to take mucho credit for having developed out much of the List of NHLs in WV, and it's nice to be appreciated! :) It would be great if you'd add pics for Matewan NHL or for other Registered Historic Places in Williamson or the rest of Mingo County, West Virginia or in counties in KY you'll cross thru on your trip.

I am really mostly focused on NHLs, but since you are so nice, and to give you a few places to upload RHP pics to, i just expanded into table format the Mingo county section List of Registered Historic Places in West Virginia, covering Williamson, WV, the List of Registered Historic Places in Kentucky (Pendleton County to Woodford County) Pike County, KY section covering Pikeville, and List of Registered Historic Places in Kentucky (Fayette County to Hopkins County) for Floyd County, KY, covering Prestonburg, which seem to be on your route. (It was using a tool supported by Elkman, so it was really no big deal.) Let me know, or post at wt:NRHP if you'd like any other county lists developed into table format sooner rather than later. These include addresses. For these and other counties, though, you know that NRHP.COM, a private site serving up public domain NRHP data provides nice lists with addresses. On a couple road trips i went on, i printed the relevant counties from NRHP.COM and found it very helpful to have the printouts.

Those tables in the wikipedia list-articles now also give addresses and latitude/longitude. You may or may not know you can click on "Map of all coordinates" in the same list-articles to get to a Google map with all the RHPs mapped (at least those having coordinates in the tables). The NRIS latitude/longitude data seems pretty good, pretty accurate about 99% of the time, and 1% gross errors.

Sanfranman59 and Clariosophic seem to have been developing List of Registered Historic Places in West Virginia, and perhaps also the Kentucky ones, otherwise; i do not take credit for developing those.

Anyhow, thanks! Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Followup--got ur note--glad u find the tables helpful. If you do upload pics to commons but don't have time to create articles on the sites, you can just replace the hidden comment "Image goes here" in the Image field in the table for the relevant rows, with a note "Commons pic(s) avail.".  I have been doing similarly, often, when I have noted that Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) pics are available for a given site.  By the way, on a recent road trip, I was happy to have every large-scale printout showing multiple locations and every zoomed-in printout for each separate location from the google maps that i had prepared beforehand, and happy to have every annotation that i had personally added to the printouts (actually, i had trouble getting the printouts to show everything, so i had to hand-annotate locations i think, and to mark distance-scalings on the printouts so i could interpret them).  Where i had less info on this trip, i often failed to find the site i was looking for;  where i had more info, i was very glad.  I also had put all my NRHP.COM printouts and the Google printouts into a 3-ring binder, which i also was very glad to have done.  So i felt i was learning a lesson to print out and organize as much as possible in advance.  But u can only do so much, of course.  Have fun on ur trip!  doncram (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for uploading the nice Matewan NHL pic, and your other NRHP additions! doncram (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Decision - Homeopathy
Just to remind you (or inform you in case you didn't know) that one vote has been submitted in support of this case being closed. Hopefully it is closed finally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'd also like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm catching up on my reading on the clarifications now. I'll get to them as soon as I can. I have several other pressing matter that I need to do first, but voting/commenting on the clarifications is towards the top of my To Do List. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OM matter
Flo, I noticed your post at AN and I appreciate your planning to make a statement, but could you quickly clarify one matter that requires no more than a quick yes or no. Is Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin a valid page representing an ArbCom decision and the closed case or not? Thanks, --Irpen 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that is what will be clarified when a statement comes forward. Thank you for commenting, BTW, Flonight. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe a lot of things will be clarified when the statement comes forward the main of which is how did we get into this mess. But my question above is a narrow one and does not require a statement to get answer. Yes or no is all there is to it. --Irpen 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I was unable to reply at that time. I think you have the answer now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. There are actually two options. Option one is that the stuff FT2 posted was a valid official arbcom decision and upon review arbcom decided to retract it. Option two is that there was never an ArbCom decision and FT2 posted his own concoction and presented it as an arbcom decision thus violating the arbitration policy. So, which one is it?


 * Did ArbCom indeed hear the secret case, came up with this decision and later decided to retract it due to the events that unraveled or was that not a valid case to begin with and just FT2's musings? The new statement posted "on behalf of ArbCom", this time by CM, states that the decision is now "vacated." I take from it that there indeed was an official decision on the secretly tried case where the arbcom acted as an activist agent rather than a judicial body, the arbcom member acted as a detective, prosecutor and a judge (did not recuse) all at once, the accused editor was not notified and the arbcom produced this decision (now vacated.) Am I correct to assume that this was the case?


 * Could you please reply as soon as you see this message? It's really a yes/no thing and it is about truth, not judgment whose making up may take time and conferring. This series of continued evasions we see from arbcom members is really unhelpful. TIA, --Irpen 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Requests_for_arbitration is an excellent proposal. Would you support investigation of the events by an Arbcom of another WMF project or creating a comission for investigation from the mebers of different Arbocoms (plus probably ex-arbitrators and people appointed by WMF)? Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at this time. Over the next few days more answers will come to the community. From shortly after the announcement to now, the Committee has engaged in internal discussions about the best way to work through the irregularities that lead to the announcements that did not reflect a consensus opinion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for temporary clerkship
See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision.

I promise to be on my very best behavior while kicking this blocked-up process in the seat of it's pants. - brenneman  02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This request is ridiculous; Aaron has just demonstrated that he is unsuitable for the role by being unaware of expected levels of restraint. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am bit concerned that Jayvdb considers such a small whack with the bold-stick to render me "unsuitable" though. I'm well aware to the level of "restraint," and intend to continue of the (normal slower) path the having an oar into clerkhood regardless.  Thank you. -  brenneman  03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my!! What have you gone and done, Aaron? I said on the case talk page that I was looking into how to speed up the case. Novel idea. In any case, I'm probably not the best person to ask since I'm recused from the case. But it seems unlikely that clerking would include drafting a case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not broken anything, fear not Flo! =) I'm thinking back now to how much opposition PROD recieved prior to it going live and how smoothly it ran from almost minute zero.  Perhaps some members of the commitee can shake the ennui and just try somthing different from what we're doing now?


 * Anyway, thank you for taking my request seriously,
 * brenneman 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Your kind words on my talk page have given me great comfort, and you are deeply appreciated. Now it is time to move back to the land of the living. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for recusal section
Given it's been deemed inappropriate in the past to file motions/etc. to compel arbitrators to recuse, should I just wipe out the current section at the top of RfAr, or merge it with the clarification itself, or just leave it? Your thoughts much appreciated. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Unsure, really. I need to read more about it to reply. (Sorry for the slow reply. I saw the message last night as I was turning my computer off, and then forgot to reply first thing this morning like I intended to do.) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33
Did you know that Giovanni323 was community banned today? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that on the talk page but have not read further about it. I think it is best for the Committee to stay silent about it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, just wanted to make sure you knew. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote to close
Isn't one arbitrator still to vote (8 voted, 1 recused - out of 10 active)? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Customarily, we vote to close after a majority is reached on enough of the ruling to make a good finding. We do not usually wait for all the active arbs to vote. They can still vote, until the case is offically closed. That would be at a minimum, 24 hours after the first vote to close. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I suppose it's fair enough - the voting has been going on for a while. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been active discussion on the mailing list about the case for the past several days, including notice to the arbitrators that it was close to reaching a majority vote on most of the case. I looked before I moved to close, and saw that the case had been open since May 4 (over 2 months) and in voting for 3 weeks. As well, for the Committee, I've had direct correspondence with G33. Based on these factors, I felt the case was ripe to close. I don't mind you inquiry, or answering questions. Probably, other users had the same question as our customs about voting can be confusing to those that do not routinely follow case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "There has been active discussion on the mailing list about the case for the past several days, including notice to the arbitrators that it was close to reaching a majority vote on most of the case." - That's interesting. That sort of notice is the sort that could be done in public as well. If people following a case knew that the arbitrators had been notified via the mailing list, that would mollify some concerns along the lines of "when is this arbitrator going to vote". Could such notices be synchronised with announcements on the Proposed Decision talk page, in the bit where the list of active arbitrators is placed? Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminder posts are common on the mailing list and on site towards the end of cases. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you  to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too. I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at : --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.

A tad bit confused (as I usually am!)
Hey Flo - I respect the comment you made on my talk page, but I'm not sure it is how it's done in practice any more. Here's a selection of recent cases that have been rejected and removed in less than 10 days;. That's the reason I removed the case and based on the fact it was mathematically impossible for the case to have four net votes to accept. In the future, would you like us to leave cases up for the full 10 days?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With 12 active arbitrators, how is it impossible to have 4 net accepts with 5 rejects? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if all 7 arbitrators that haven't voted accepted the case, that would make the case 7/5/0/0 which would only be 2 net votes to accept.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at it from a purely mathematical view based on the current 5 rejects, it may be true that the case can not be accepted if the votes all remain unchanged. But if some of the remaining 7 arbitrators decided to accept, then it is likely that other arbitrators would review their vote and switch. If you look at the Tango case, it an example of a vote where various arbitrators switched their votes and the case opened. The idea of leaving the case open for 10 days is best practice.  Having it removed a few days early would not be a problem if the discussion has gone completely stale. But I do not think it is best to quickly remove the case after it theoretically reaching an set number. The users involved are often new to arbitration, spun up about a dispute, and benefit from more time to figure out what is happening. Does that make sense? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's understandable - I'm still new to the "clerk" aspect of arbitration so apologies for bothering you - your comment makes a lot of sense, but help is always much appreciated :-).  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Glad to answer questions. When I was inactive and away, I noticed some other cases being removed early and planned to mention it when I returned. This is the first time I had a chance to say something. By the way, thanks for your help clerking, Ryan. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that the case went to 0/6, in my opinion there is no point leaving it on the page any longer than the three days it had already been, and hence I have removed it. If the new policy is going to be "wait until 10 arbitrators give their opinion to reject before removing it", or "wait ten days before removing it", we'll have around 4-5 requests at any one time on the page, plus the apparently-standard-nowadays 3-4 clarifications. If each end up with 30kb of discussion (as they often do), then the page will have around 200k on it at any one time, making it unloadable for what I would suspect would be the majority of Wikipedians. If that's the line you're going to push, you're going to need to think up a solution to the fact that RfAr will be unloadable; the obvious one would be to have it so that we don't wait over two weeks to try and find a majority on motions which aim to resolve the disruptive conflicts in Eastern European articles, and only get six votes total, but that would appear to be beyond the Committee at the moment. Daniel (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Perhaps it's out of place for me to be asking this, and it might be something you don't know the answer to, but, it is something that I am curious about. Are the arb-clarifications that require voting still being discussed by the Committee on the mailing list? Aside from yourself, Kirill, Thebainer, Sam Blacketer and FayssalF, with or without nudges, the rest of the Committee seem to refuse vote at all. I don't understand why they'd want to let everyone else get the impression that they place little/no importance on it. Given how the most recent request for amendment that required voting was inactive (in the same way) and got archived...and it's not like they aren't being reminded now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think refuse to vote is an accurate characterization of the situation. I had already made up my mind to support a motion once the new wording was ironed out on the Homeopathy case. A quick search of my gmail account shows a July 1st email from an arbitrator reminding the rest of the committee of the arb-clarification and motions. That post prompted me to vote.  If an arbitrator has not had time to look into an issue, then I do not think that it is wise for them to vote. As frustrating as it is to see issues delayed, I think it is worse to have arbitrators pressured into making decisions before they are ready to make them. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. As well, I notice that you reminded me on this talk page of the arb-clarifications. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still a little troubled by that. The entire purpose of discretionary sanctions is to delegate responsibility (isn't it?) - if the Committee does not have the time to look into how the area is purportedly (still) encountering problems post-arbitration-case, then isn't that a greater problem? Why don't arbitrators ask to be marked as inactive on those cases that they do not have the time to deal with? (And in the case they did have the time, they could vote for support or oppose, or if not completely decided still, they abstain and give the reasoning for not supporting or opposing as usual.) As for my own nudges, I've given a fair amount, especially to all other active arbs who have not voted.
 * The arb-clarifications have been sitting there since early May, and mid-May - we're now between early and mid July. Both have been ready for voting since late June - it's nearly a fortnight now. If someone were to look through the contributions history of the remaining arbitrators (even taking into consideration those top-priority matters like oversight and injunctions), are they going to come to the conclusion that the arbitrators did not have the time, or that they did not give enough priority? Just want to point out how it seems (i.e. the reality may actually be different to the characterization of the situation). I'm here out of my own curiosity, and in a way, to make you aware that they seem or it seems like.... Ideally, I'm neither involved, or a party, so the outcome of this does not really affect me in any way. (Yay?) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. In case I forget later, and even for now, a special thank you for your prompt response - it's truely appreciated. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given abstaining reduces the number of active arbitrators for that motion, and hence the majority, if arbitrators don't want to support or oppose because they don't know the subject matter well enough, they should abstain so the motion can pass. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RfArb for Bardcom
Hi FloNight, I'm not sure what the process is when responding to comments made by arbs. I have a long and detailed response prepared, but I was holding off until a decision to accept was made. It addresses (some of) your concerns over "wikistalking, misuse of edit summaries, labeling another user's edits as vandalism". Is it best to hold off? --Bardcom (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I do not see this as entirely one sided as it seems that frustration has lead to less than optimal communication among the involved parties. Often times people in disputes will "talk past" each other. Now, to answer your question, detailed responses are not needed on the RFArb page. We ask parties to limit their statements to inforamtion that gives a summary of the issues. Yes, detailed evidence is for the evidence page after a case opens. If you already have it prepared, and want others to see it, then perhaps put it in user space and link to it. Would that work? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you're saying - although I actually feel I take the brunt of a lot of abuse and personal attacks, with my only "crime" being some of my edits resulting in the removal of the term "British Isles". And while I try *never* to make personal comments, perhaps my frustration at blind reverting and having my contributions stalked manifests in other ways... sure, I can accept that. Still, persecution complex or not, this is what an RfArb decides ultimately.  I have no problem letting "others" see my response, but I don't want to kick off a big debate before the case has been decided, and I fear that there are one or two "contributor-watchers" that would react in this way.  On balance, perhaps it's better to hold off, and perhaps after, one way or the other and if you're interested, we can try to address the points you've raised. --Bardcom (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. Wait to see if the case is accepted or not. Then you, the other involved parties, and hopefully other editors can work through the issues one way or another, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs with that. --Bardcom (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi FloNight, As one of the contributors to the Bardcom RfA I've been monitoring the situation and I was wondering if you could explain something to me. Although I believe this is far more than a content dispute, it looks like there's a school of thought emerging which suggests that's all it is. I suppose in some respects it's a content dispute spanning literally hundreds of articles, so if that's what's decided - and the RfA fails - what's the next step? Or perhaps the question is, as someone who is concerned about what's going on here, what else can I do to get some sort of independent assessment of Bardcom's edits? So far, everything has failed, and it looks as though the RfA might fail as well. Thanks, CarterBar (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Likely what is needed is more editors and administrators giving feedback to the involved parties. Let's see what happens with the RFArb. If is not accepted then I'll make more specific suggestions, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Flo, sounds like a good idea. Thanks. CarterBar (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi FloNight, I don't want to preempt the result, but it looks like it won't be accepted. Perhaps we can bring the timetable forward a little in order to begin to resolve this content dispute. What suggestions do you have? Myself, I thought that perhaps a Project to look at the subject? My concern is that the forming of a consensus on this issue *may* result in a lot of stress and disruption - at the beginning at least, and may require "hand-holding". Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi FloNight. The RfArb was not accepted. Are you still interested in helping to broker a solution to this? --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I need a day or so to review the situation. I'll get back with you. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ty! - btw, I changed from Bardcom to HighKing. Also, just so you know, I filed this - although it's not going anywhere (although I'm starting to question this process).  --HighKing (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PHG mentor
PHG has seemingly ignored the one mentor offer he's had, so what to do with his case/clarification? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it and respond at the request for clarification. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still willing, but PHG hasn't got back to me yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Let me know if you hear anything from PHG. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. I heard back from PHG, so we are good to go as long as you are happy for me to help out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I heard from PHG as well and I informed the rest of the Committee a few minutes ago. Likely it is a go, but I'll get back with you in the next day or so to confirm it, ok? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian
Please see Requests_for_arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed_decision and comment on it, please, as I dont think we need to wait. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that Morven voted now and that it has already closed. Our norm in the past has been to close cases that are 100% in agreement quicker than 24 hours once 4 close votes happen. In this instance, I meant for the case at a minimum not to be closed sooner than 24 hours since Morven had voted on some but not all of the case. Once the usual 24 hours had past, closing would have been fine. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart
I'd be interested in your opinion/advice on this matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no time to look at this any time soon. I have several other outstanding issues I must to follow up on asap, and also some incomplete article work that I need to finish. If your post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography does not get you the needed feedback, try a content RFC. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi FloNight. I'm back from a nice and long 14th of July week end (national holiday here). I wrote a note to tell Angus that I accept his offer. I don't know him at all, so I can only hope that the collaboration will be beneficial. Could you kindly confirm approval of the commity? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll let the rest of the ArbCom know. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Arb Evidence
I seem to remember reading you saying that you would look into why the Evidence page was deleted, and try to get some version of it restored if possible, or oversighted etc. Have you had chance to do this yet? Thanks. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked into it and found out the general reason that the page was deleted and why it has not been restored yet. I plan to followed up further to so what needs to be done to get it restored. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sounds very hush-hush... :) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Appeal request
Hi, Flo. I amended my statement at Requests for arbitration since you left your comment. Could you take another look?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement further.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll look. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What did you think?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Review request
Per Tony's aggreement with you, I think you should review this comment. I've not seen the abuse/trolling that others have from him (he's not helpful, but neither am I), but I think this is beyond neccessary. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This has escalated to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you re-blocked. I left a comment on Tony's talk page supporting the block and explaining why it was a problem. Do as you need to do to keep the arbcom cases pages under control. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Flo, I'm sure you mean well, but this is horrendously bad advice. Tony doesn't need to "choose [his] words more carefully." His recent scatological outburst was harmless compared to the exhausting, meddlesome, quarrelsome, tiresome and ultimately pointeless (albeit politely and "carefully worded") Arbcom-related dreck to which he has been subjecting the community in recent weeks. Trust me that "overly colorful language" is not the problem here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm recused on the case and not following the discussion on the case pages. I'm only aware of the comment that has been brought to my attention with this block. In the past, I've discussed with Tony that his volume of contributions in discussions can be a problem. If that is the case, then that should be pointed out to him as well as the problems with his choice of words. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TFMWNCB-I don't consider his scatalogical outburst harmless. As for what you said about his "Arbcom-related dreck", are you trying to say he should be blocked for disruption at arbcom? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FN, I agree that your comment to Tony was unnecessary and unhelpful, and may have been one of several last straws for him. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you happen to be online with a couple of minutes spare? Daniel (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel, being 1:30 a.m. my time I was asleep. Looking an AN/I, I see that the situation deteriorated considerably after I went off line. Since I'm recused on the cases, I'm not the best person to sort out the issues related to clerking. I prefer to limit my involvement to clarifying that Tony/Jenny placed himself under a civility parole to stop himself from making comments that other user find so offensive that he halts the discussion. Based on my past discussions with Tony, his comment was exactly the type of comment that warrants a block under the civility parole. Beyond that, I have nothing to add at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problems. Daniel (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK
This one looks like it almost made it to GA before DYK :) Nice work! --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC
 * Thanks. A pleasant surprise. I had no idea that it was nominated. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It really is a nice article. I find it—exhilarating that no matter how many articles we have, people can always find new topics as interesting as this to write another new article about.  User:PFHLai is the one who spotted and nominated the article. --JayHenry (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! Just looked on his talk page and saw that you already had figured that out... --JayHenry (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the best part of contributing is finding underdeveloped topics and writing about them. Looking at PFLai's talk page, I see that he is good at finding interesting new articles and writing good hooks. Having someone besides article creators make the noms is good for the DYK process. I hope when PFLai returns from his wikivacation that he will continue this highly useful task. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Explain Something to Me
Hi. I'm really scared to ask an admin this question because I'm afraid that they'll block me because they're gonna think I'm being smart. But you seems nice so I'll ask you. I recently created a page called "Christopher Studio of Dance and Theatre Arts" but User: Zedla deleted it because she claimed it was blatant advertising. I explained that I have absolutely no affiliation with the studio at all so I clearly was not advertising because why would I advertise something I wouldn't benefit from. She said it was still contraband nonetheless,and would remain deleted. I then wanted to ask her this question, but I was afraid I would get blocked so I didn't. But what I want to know is how come my page was considered advertisment but there is a page for "5 Guys" which is a burger joint, there is a page for "Duane Reade" which is a drug store, etc. So how come the company I was writing about was considered advertisement but those aren't. I didn't list any phone numbers or anything, so what is wrong? Crew90 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply on your talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review
Flo, Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I know you were one of the editors who agreed with the idea of bringing this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad, and so I hope you'll be pleased we've come this far. We would appreciate a peer review from you if you can find the time, to help us iron out any flaws before we go to FAC. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal Spring Park
Just wanted to let you know that I nominated Royal Spring Park for DYK.-- Bedford Pray  04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 5
Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.


 * 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. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email a couple days ago, have you had a chance to read it?  MBisanz  talk 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I found it and sent you a reply a few minutes ago. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal Spring Park

 * BorgQueen, thanks for letting me know. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I request you  to be the Honorable Arbitrator to my case Brhmoism
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too. I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at : --203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC) alan sun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.98.177 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brhmaand Pujan Critics’, News-Reviews.
 * I'm not understanding what you are after. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Khop kuhn kaa
Sawadee. Hi. Thanks for saying hi. It's nice to meet other gals on wiki. R says most users are guys. — Jojo  •  Talk  • 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, more guys than gals. And very few couples or families which is strange to me because I'm use to being involved in organizations with my family. My husband and I work together on articles but he does not edit. We take pictures (mostly of historic places) and I upload them to Commons. We both do research and then I write articles on the subject. We started doing it about a year ago and usually take pics at least one weekend a month. Do you plan to write about any specific article topics? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thai stuff, but I won't be nearly as active as R. Right now I work on Tak Province, where I am from. — Jojo  •  Talk  • 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RFAR
I see you and the wife have met. Should we close this: RFAR, You're the only one to comment and that was back on the 18th. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and remove it. I have it on my TO DO List, already. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Gatoclass, thank you for letting me know, and thank you for the other good work that you do related to DYK. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK 12/8

 * weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, thank you for letting me know. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could
I'm working on an RfC in my sandbox. As I did not get done right last time, could you tell me if I did it right this time? Thanks.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  04:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Since I'm on the Arbitration Committee, I usually do not get involved with discussions about RFCs. I'll ask someone else to take a look. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks you, I understand.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Email
FYI, sent you an email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I forwarded your email on to the rest of the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey again
Long time no see... lol. I finally got my Master's degree a week or so ago. It was a long struggle... but I made it. I've been looking around and see Herostratus and some others I used to edit with have been blocked or have disappeared. I wonder what happened to Hero; his last edit was back on June 1 I believe. Only a vague reference to something in the newspapers on his userpage.

Anyway, I just wanted to say hi and I may find me an article or two to tidy up. I've suddenly found myself with a little time on my hands for a change. --DanielCD (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing dis-Harmony at Haines Workshop
It is difficult not to respond when my intentions are mis-stated. I am in complete agreement with your "all inclusive, all info available" policy. Contrary to Ilkali's belief, my response was to you...not him. I am asking at the Manual of Style site if there are, in fact, some guildlines to when and how to indent. This is the first time that I've been corrected and I want to be sure that I'm in accord with any standards. It makes editing easier. Bedankt!--Buster7 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Email
I've sent you an email. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply sent. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 reply + extra note sent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind support
Result. Peter Damian (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent!! ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocking for wheel warring
I saw that you rebuked the idea of blocking for wheel warring. In WP:WHEEL it says "Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents"(emphasis added). Now the wording is not clear as to who should decide these sanctions. I know that regular users and admins can give cautions and reprimands, so I assumed that blocking would be the remit of admins.

Not sure which was it is meant to be, or which way it should be but either way this may need to be clarified. Chillum 18:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I have updated WP:WHEEL accordingly. Chillum 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's worth discussing this further there, but MBisanz opened the ArbCom case while I was applying the block I'd promised, so there was no actual escalation, and the protection warring appears to have stopped. Whether its within my authority to issue such a block can be disputed, I suppose, but it does seem to have been at worst merely ineffective, and at best ended the protection war. Wily D  21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced that the protection war would have stopped without the Arbitration case request. Your block was undone before you agreed. Also not good and could have caused more drama if the case request was not started. After seeing many of these instances in the past, admin who believe that they are taking the correct action will continue to do it until someone stops it by getting Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee involved. Your sincere belief that it was correct to block and revert to protection is equally matched by another admins sincere belief that full protection is un-wiki and absolutely needs to be reversed. And note, that there is disagreement among contributors about if consensus was reached. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm neither convinced nor unconvinced of that. Moreschi had said that I could undo him with his permission if I felt it was necessary, but I decline mostly on the grounds that I didn't want to see any more undoing of actions.  Regardless of whether a consensus was reached or not, warring over the protection was unacceptable.  When a few of us issued warnings that we'd take action against anyone who continued, it did seem to lull the war.  There is a substantial difference between my action and MZMcBride - he unprotected because he believed unprotection was the right choice; I blocked him because it's my job as an administrator to prevent disruption through various methods, and that's what I believed to be the best method to end the disruption.  I have no real opinion on whether the article should be full, semi or unprotected - only that warring over it is disruptive and should not be tolerated. Wily D  22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you think that what you did was correct or you would not have done it. :-) You protected the article because you felt that it was the right thing to do. This the same thinking of other admin who unprotected it because they thought it was the correct action. It is not helpful to use admin tools in these heated situations when others are highly likely to reverse your actions. Blocking an admin for using their tools in a manner that you think is wrong is a controversial use of your tools and had a good likelihood of being reversed on review or undone without discussion. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a fair characterisation of my actions, though ultimately that'll be your decision to make, not mine. I can block other admins for regular edit warring, but not tool based edit warring?  I don't see that these are different.  WP:WHEEL's been changed, but it was previously at least consistant with the action I took.  I would venture to say that maybe my real misstep was reverting MZMcBride's action that led to the block - if I had left it only semi'd, would I still be on the block (then again, I'd have probably felt oblidged to treat anyone reprotecting in the same fashion - the whole thing gets muddy from there). Usually I'd revert anyone being disruptive enough to get blocked, seemed like I should've done nothing differently.  Wily D  23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation
Hello FloNight

Yes, this is the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm trying to add a page for the Pope Villa which is one of our properties, but I'm new to Wikipedia and apparently I'm doing it wrong because they keep deleting my page. We do have information about many properties across the Bluegrass. Contact our office with specific questions. Our contact information is at our website. Thanks!

--Bluegrasstrust (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin attacking you on AN/I
In the Chris Selwood/Poetlister thread on AN/I, User:SlimVirgin has posted a rather obnoxious screed in which she raises a number of unfounded allegations against you. Many of us are saddened about the possibility that Poetlister was involved in such massive deceit, but that does not give SlimVirgin the right to take it out on you and increase the drama in the way she did. --Dragon695 (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, she did it again at m:Meta talk:Babel/Poetlister and Cato. guillom 09:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I advise extreme caution before replying to any allegations, making any allegations or responding to any allegations. I suspect what we have seen so far is merely the tip of a very large iceberg. It's best to let all people post what they want and then sit back and make a leisured evaluation of all posts at a future date. One wrong move here, could refelect very badly on the project and cause some long lasting harm and ill feeling. The truth will emerge, but in it's own time and way. Nothing must be done to hinder that process. Giano (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new in Slim's anger at Flo for supporting Poetlister's bureaucrat status on Wikiquote and "her" unblock here. What is news is that we now know Poetlister fooled dozens if not hundreds of people with a deception that was almost impossible to pierce.  If FloNight has to step down as arbitrator for this, she will be at the head of a line of of dozens of administrators.  Shall I make a list of all the people who defended Poetlister so we can have a good old-fashioned purge? Thatcher 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should. Some people, such as myself, would say that Wikipedia is long overdue for an admin purge... Jtrainor (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight stood out in her support of him, Thatcher, because she knew about his involvement in the very early days of Wikipedia Review, when it was run by the neo-Nazi, and Poetlister/Guy's attacks on me, because I remember her being involved in discussions about it. She helped to have him elected as bureaucrat by telling voters on Wikiquote she had opened a discussion on ArbCom about having him unblocked. She then used that he had been elected as bureaucrat to bolster her case to ArbCom for unblocking. And this is the second time an arbitrator has unblocked Poetlister -- Charles Matthews was the first, so there is clearly a case to answer here. Other arbitrators have helped to uncover this, but if some arbitrators hadn't kept pushing for unblocks in the first place, there would have been considerably less damage done, and less distress caused to those Poetlister had outed and attacked. That Poetlister managed to gain access to the global checkuser list is truly disgraceful.


 * Other supporters of his were all or mostly men who supported Poetlister's accounts only because they believed they were attractive women, though it was obvious from the writing (both tone and content), especially when his guard was down, that it was an older, pompous, and very vindictive man. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to give one example of the odd writing &mdash; there was frequent fishing for compliments about his appearance (based on his fraudulent use of pictures of young women), followed by "why thank you, kind sir," and similar phrases, when a compliment finally appeared. But this isn't how women talk. This is how men of a certain age (who watched movies of a certain age but have otherwise had few close relationships with women) think women talk. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that SlimVirgin appears to not be able to understand that unfounded personal attacks such as "who supported Poetlister's accounts only because they believed they were attractive women" creates enemies and reveals herself to be someone who acts as if they are capable of reading others' minds and determining all the sources and causes of their actions. Being attacked does not excuse attacking others. Attacking others' motivations is a personal attack. Contrast that with pointing out unacceptable behavior, which is a necessary activity and not a personal attack. Unfortunately, the way the wikipedia game is typically played means that Slim might decide to treat this comment as a personal attack rather than as information she can learn from and thereby improve her ability to interact with her fellow wikipedians. As I said, it is a shame. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point that at least one friend has also made &mdash; that I should focus on behavior, not motivation. I suppose in this case, it was difficult to ignore the (apparent) motives, given that the reaction to Poetlister was often along the lines of, "Wow, you're gorgeous. How can I help?" Which, indeed, is why the operator of the accounts chose those photographs in the first place, no doubt. Or is that me doing it again? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 05:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that you recognize it as a fair point. Bad habits are hard to break. Good luck with what I hope will be efforts on your part to improve yourself in this regard. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, SlimVirgin, it's not at all far-fetched (nor unimportant, for that matter) that he carefully chose those specific images while crafting his fake identities. And the (relative) sophistication with which he did it does indeed directly add to the unacceptability of his behaviour. user:Everyme 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Was, I don't want to fight with you, or cause anything that may be a fight. I just wanted to state that I have, before, not went after someone as much as I would have because they were female. I try to be objective and treat everyone as individuals without taking anything into consideration but the facts that I see, but that doesn't always happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision -Alastair Haines
All items pass now, and there's a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 6 (FINAL ISSUE)

 * —Rschen7754bot (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
I have requested that Cmmmmm discuss the references in question, but the user simply will not enter any discussion. I have invited other editors to comment, but have not received any replies. I'm not sure how to pursue other methods of mediation if other parties will not respond in any way other than reverting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to be patient. Dispute resolution takes a long time. The situation will be resolved eventually. If this situation is getting frustrating for you, then work on other articles that are less difficult for now. Or do something off wiki that you enjoy. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What method of dispute resolution is recommended where one party will not enter into discussion, and other editors haven't commented?--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try a request for comment on the article content? Later, maybe mediation. But give the request for comment a good long while to gather some input, first. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the RFC template to the Talk page. I have strong suspicions that Cmmmm is also sockpuppetting under the name Tre2. I have made the check request for the sockpuppet, for which there hasn't yet been a formal response. However an admin (User:Sam Blacketer) on the arbitration page has also indicated the sockpuppeteering. With that in light, what other action should be taken?--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought
On your userpage it says "Please let me know if I can be of assistance to you."

You can help me by unblocking steve crossin and letting the community come to its own decision, arbcom wasnt asked to meddle, so dont.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't be so hostile about it, but I was under the impression that it was widely considered improper for a sitting arbiter to carry out arbitration enforcement. It seems prudent to maintain at least an appearance of a separation between the judge and the executioner.  Hi DrNick ! 18:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the previous arrangement was not a "ban", but a break, and only accepted with the agreement of Steve. Wait wait, I already said this, weeks ago... -- Ned Scott 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship for SteveCrossin
I have gotten an offwiki request during a Skype discussion that Steve would like me, Mitchazenia, to be his mentor to help him reform and wait for the period of the time necessary for ArbCom to decide when its best to let him back. It'll be a long period, that I know, but I still feel we should give im a chance to reform while waiting. If its possible, could we discuss this, it seems really important to him. Mitch 32(UP) 14:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)