User talk:FloNight/archive 8

Puzzled
I am puzzled and frankly a bit offended by this comment on RFAr: "As pointed out by bainer, since the Community has not reached consensus on a policy/guideline on the topic, we have repeated cycles of the issue causing content disputes. The Community needs to find a way to write this policy and not look to the Committee to do it through Committee ruling that causes a back door policy decision that one side can link to in future discussions."

I am hard-pressed, with the exception of Randomran, to find anyone commenting on this request who has been more involved than I have in developing a consensus about notability. There is an active policy discussion on this, and I've worked hard on it - unlike, frankly, any of the arbcom or TTN. I filed this request because mass deletion requests are an active hindrance to general consensus, because deletion is a hostile process. My assumption was that this reasoning was why TTN's previous engagement in this behavior - editing purely to merge articles and delete them without any attempt at discussion - was sanctioned. Because it was an active impediment to consensus building.

Even if the arbcom wishes to get away from this issue and not issue any further rulings on it - a change of policy I can understand, even if I find it deeply regrettable, I greatly resent the claim that, by bringing this request, I am somehow looking to the Committee to create a back door policy.

I recognize that the committee is deeply disinclined to step into any issue involving notability (though I would ask where, in the absence of the committee, they foresee any sort of leadership on this issue coming from). But I wish that the committee would simply say that instead of accusing me of trying to back door policy when all I was doing was asking the committee to step in on an issue they had previously ruled upon. That accusation is unwarranted and offensive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the Committee answered a query about the situation already, I do not think that our response is surprising. Reading the comments of the users on the request page, I note that as usual, the editors involved in the situation see the issue somewhat differently than other users that are not involved. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was, it should be noted, unaware of the previous query - I had inquired idly on the mailing list as to why TTN had not been brought back to arbcom for his behavior, and nobody indicated that the answer was "actually, he has." Indeed, Matthew Brown seemed unaware that he had, and the archiving for rejected requests does not make finding out key pieces of information like that terribly easy.


 * As for the comment about involved users, I'm not sure what you're driving at. I am barely involved, frankly - I've had no real dealings with TTN. I mostly discovered the situation when I was trying to get some data on the practical question of what AfD does and doesn't keep, and discovered his nominations, which I found somewhat problematic. So again, I'd have to say that I don't feel like I should be lumped in with the group you're trying to lump me in with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view you're involved because, as you state above, you have a stronger opinion than the average user about the issue.  Some users feel that many Afds are needed to keep the non-notable articles thinned out. You see deletion as a hostile process and feel that the Afds are a hindrance. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your determination to lump users into easily defined categories in lieu of actually looking at what is being said is regrettable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
While I still disagree with you on the matter with Steve, thank you for taking the time to explain the situation with me. I know I can come off as.. demanding.. and being an arb is not an easy job. I greatly appreciate it. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful reply. :-) Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
Thank you. This is very kind of you. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Milhist
Hi! I see you're a member of the American Civil War task force but not of the Military history wikiproject itself. Would you like to sign up? You can do so here. Thanks in advance, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I added my name. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) Here's the standard Welcome message. Please delete it if it's telling you how to suck eggs :)

 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion
Per your suggestion I've filed Requests for comment/Hemanshu, but since he hasn't responded in over a year to inquiries, I'm not exactly optimistic on him responding to it.  MBisanz  talk 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ginger Jolie deletion
I urge you to reconsider your stance. Your comments regarding DRV are particularly inapposite. Since the Committee has established the policy committing a decision to the discretion of a single, self-selected adminstrator when the community is divided (and, in theory, even if it is not), the decision in a matter like this is procedurally correct, whatever its outcome. This is a problem created by the Arbitration Committee, and only it can resolve it. As you accurately state, this is a "community matter," and a major part of the problem is that the decision was taken from the hands of the community and decided by the preferences of a single, self-selected administrator. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Case needs intervention
I request some urgent arbitrator's intervention into the pages of Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2 and I am leaving this same note to all four Arbitrators who commented on the case so far.

The pages of the case have deteriorated beyond reasonable due to the conduct of some of the case participants. Please take a look at this new section of evidence for details. Yes, many bitter cases are filled with nonsense claims but there must be a limit to how much outright crankery can be tolerated at the ArbCom cases without any action taken.

Case' pages being turned into a total mess adversely affects the chances of the cohesive outcome. Too much nonsense in the cases pages buries the constructive entries and make the whole pages unreadable or incomprehensible. This leads to the arbitrators' non-participation in the discussions, which, in turn, brings, and I am not going to sugar-coat this, the case's outcomes being often too disconnected from actual concerns raised at its pages. This is why, I am calling for a rather unusual remedy to be applied to a case itself.

I would like to request that some aggressive clerk-like work is applied to the pages of the case: the workshop and the evidence. This cannot be left to clerks since this requires application of the discretion on the cases merits beyond the freedom given to clerks. If you could go over the current evidence and workshop pages and aggressively remove the patent nonsense and senseless rants (including my own entries if they are perceived as such), the benefit would be two-fold. First, it would make case pages more readable and, thus, more useful. Second, it would send a strong message to all parties that their conduct in the case is being monitored and may have consequences that would, hopefully, switch everyone to a more constructive mode. When looking at the pages you would see at once that the nonsense there is abundant and its presence disrupts the case.

I am not requesting any sanctions against anyone at this point. All I am asking is to return some normalcy to the case' pages.

Thank you in advance. --Irpen 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After requesting "ethical_conduct" from ArbCom, Irpen found my evidence so important that he decided to intervene contrary to his own request. I replied here (please see "bare facts").Biophys (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Every arbitrator or a clerk is very welcome to remove anything from my evidence.Biophys (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on proposal posted
I am leaving this note at the talk pages of four arbitrators who so far commented on the Piotrus_2 arbcom. Just letting you know that I posted a general comment on the workshop proposal by Kirill Lokshin to the  workshop's talk page. Regards, --Irpen 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just giving you heads up that I responded to the followup question by one of your colleagues at the workshop's talk here. --Irpen 20:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi
Flonight, I am not Science Apologist. You seem to be mistaking me for him.

After my FIRST post EVER to Arbcom about Martinphi (unless you count the request for clarification on the Paranormal case to be specifically about Martinphi), you have publicly stated thee Arbcom knows full well my opinion, and I should shut up and let other people speak. This was my first time speaking on the matter. I am NOT Science Apoologist, I am not under any Arbcom restrictions for POV-pushing. Would you care to retract or rewrite your comment.person, you know. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

g'day Flo
Hi Flo - I hope you're well, and I thought I'd swing by here with a request re the User:Steve Crossin matter - I feel like I've dug around in quite a lot of detail at this point (you can see here what I've read up on), and in particular I found this diff very useful in clearing stuff up.

I also noticed that the WP:RFAR page is kinda quiet at the mo. so I thought I'd strike (again!) while the iron was, well, cold I guess :-)

I've chatted with Steve a bit about this, and it's clear to me that he would like to edit again as soon as possible, and if banned, would like to be able to make a statement of some sort (I feel fairly sure that others might wish to comment too, so perhaps a semi-formal 'evidence', 'workshop' process is actually a reasonable fit?). This isn't my call, of course, though - but what I would ask is that the 'internal committee vote' you refer to is formally certified 'on wiki' - some uncertainty remains in my mind over this, and it would no doubt help others to maintain Editing_restrictions (I'm happy to update that page when this is cleared up etc. :-)

I'm happy to talk further about why I believe this is the best course of action for both the project, and for Steve - essentially it boils down to my belief that clarity is kind :-)

huge thanks for helping with this one in any way possible! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ping :-) (and there's a related chat on my talk page now, too :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian
In under 19 hours, this case will be two weeks old soon. All proposals pass, and one move to close has been made. If you could kindly hop on over to this page and vote on closing, that'd be great. Cheers :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC) ✅
 * Can't get much more prompt than that - appreciate it (and your thoughts, as always). :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You got email
White Cat, look for an email from me. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My response and the only comment I will make on the matter is utter disappointment at arbcom. The ban was placed by the community, not arbcom. It would be strange for arbcom to lift a ban arbcom did not even went as far as endorsing. Arbcom did not even accept the Jack Merridew arbcom case as "he was already community blocked". The user has been indef banned like three times and you are willing to lift that. It hasn't even been a year. I do want to remind arbcom that they went out of their way to even talk about lifting my three-year-old mediation ban. To an untrained eye (my eye) it seems like arbcom only and only rewards extremely poor conduct such has harassment going on for years. -- Cat chi? 07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I do not normally expect prompt responses, I'd welcome a response before arbcom decides on the matter. -- Cat chi? 18:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since arbcom is not willing to be the solution to this problem and insists on being the source it, I have brought this matter into Jimbo's attention. I do not know if he will get involved. I hope he does. I am tired of dealing with this issue which will soon celebrate its fifth anniversary as of 12 May 2009. -- Cat chi? 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * White Cat, I'll listen to Jimbo's thoughts, of course. But if he can edit without bother you, then I think we should let him come back. Jack Merridew will be under editing restrictions that will keep him completely away from you and from commenting about you. One or more experienced users will be monitoring his contributions to make sure that he is not bothering you in any way. I made the restrictions strict in this way because of the problems that you had in the past. I think we should give it a chance to work, truly. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We already tried that in commons. That didn't quite stop him. After his ban from en.wikipedia his first few edits on commons were stalking which has seemingly stopped. He doesn't make any edits there anymore.
 * This user had no useful contributions. He dedicated his time in removing my work. Weather it is Turkey related topics, or weather it is Anime related topics or any other topics I care about like mass removing episode and character articles. His ban here has not lasted half a year. Has it been quarter of a year?
 * Arbcom wasn't willing to lift my mediation ban. Why is arbcom removing Jack Merridew's ban? Is he more worthy to the community than I? I really want to know.
 * I demand arbcom to document their reasoning in detail. Why am I even having this conversation with arbcom? Jack Merridew is a sanctioned troll and sockpuppeter. He was convicted multiple times in harassing multiple users - of which at least three times by arbcom. He had absolutely no useful contribution for the past few years aside from an edit pattern that closely resembles User:TTN who IIRC was banned by arbcom for his edit pattern.
 * -- Cat chi? 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still do want to know why arbcom isn't willing to lift my mediation ban yet is considering lifting Jack Merridews indef ban. After all he was the very reason I got that ban. He interfered with every mediation attempt I made. -- Cat chi? 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your mediation ban is a separate issue, but I will be glad to raise it with the Arbitration Committee now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to review the evidence and rephrase that statement. Arbcom did a poor job back then. I want all the relevant evidence reviewed.
 * My prohibition from mediating was passed 4 to 3 #Coolcat prohibited from mediating and four workshop sections were linked to the rationale. I'll give you a snapshot
 * #Mediation and opposition: Links to this diff where Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) did not even let me adjust section depths. This is evidence of Davenbelle stalking. I had no vested interest in the article Javier Solana yet Davenbelle followed me to that article and completely disrupted my mediation attempt with his constant revert waring even over the most minor issue documented in this paragraph.
 * #Coolcat's status as a mediator: I self nominated myself to MedCom on 4 April 2005. Among the people opposing was Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle).
 * #Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations: Revert war by Davenbelle over my format edits. I tried to use a color scheme and Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) revert wared to remove it. He later revert wared over a typo fix I had. To date he made one and only one edit to the article. Clearly his interest was not the article in question but instead was my involvement.
 * #Nanking Massacre: Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) was of course involved but so was Karl Meier (aka Stereotek) who revert wared over thumbnail sizes with me. Fadix (aka many aliases: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan: Didodo, Rodolui, Drosophilawhodoestnotfl, Anatolmethanol) later joined the joint harassment.
 * Fadix got a one year ban on 11 April 2007 which was extended until 25 February 2009 due to the abusive use of sockpuppets. The only relevance this has to my case is that this is was one of the three guys that interfered with my mediation attempt.
 * In conclusion Jack Merridew (aka Davenbelle) has interfered with each and every one of my mediation attempts even on articles he made no contribution at all (Javier Solana). The "separate issue" isn't as separate as it seems to be. The evidence speaks for itself. All arbcom needs to do is look at it.
 * -- Cat chi? 15:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, let me tell you what is going to happen.
 * Arbcom will lift the ban of Jack Merridew. We certainly need more people like him on the project.
 * Arbcom will not actually discuss my mediation ban. We certainly do not want anyone like me on the project the slightest bit of courtesy.
 * Jimbo will not even get involved. Imagine helping out in a complicated - yet not so complicated case. I can understand his reasoning. Sure. I respect what he is doing. But if arbcom is this incompetent and unwilling to be the solution who else can I go to?
 * Arbcom is very predictable with their incompetence. So I am sure all three things I stated above will become a reality.
 * Now tell me, why should I or anyone even care about obeying any policy or guideline?
 * Evidently arbcom will never enact any long term sanctions. At most arbcom would blocks for something like three months...
 * Arbcom will go out of their way to incompetently ignore any and all relevant evidence even when the case is a slam dunk. All arbcom needed to do was read the evidence - which arbcom did not even glance at. The community (non-arbcom) banned Jack Merridew forever. And once that was over arbcom is going out of it's way to allow the freak back and by doing so arbcom overrules the community ban probably for the first time in wiki history (we aren't talking about a ban by a single user but by multiple users). Arbcom is only and only helping once side of the dispute and that side clearly was never me. Not in 2005, not in 2006, not in 2007 and of course not in 2008. The fact that I am listing four years says something, doesn't it?
 * The sad part of it all is that this isn't the first time. I had to deal with the nonsense by MARMOT spoofing IPs and all. Brion has a report on it. I'll let you find it but I know you will not even look at it so there really is no point in me presenting a link. MARMOT too was given a second chance and he used it to make my day miserable. For that he was later unblocked. Fortunately he left the community or else I am sure arbcom would go out of their way to help MARMOT continue to be the source of annoyance.
 * You know, I am not sure why arbcom is committing this illogical and disruptive behavior. Why is it that arbcom is so unwilling to be a part of a solution and going out of it's way to be the very source of the problem? I do not know what motivates arbcom to act this irrationally.
 * Maybe what prompted this nonsense is me trying to help arbcom with the CSI thing. Clearly, arbcom doesn't need any help as they do just fine in ignoring presented evidence.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I would recommend arbcommers to comment on the WP:VPP#A wiki equavalent of CSI (developing idea) thread. The proposal should be shaped to meet the needs of arbcom above everything else after all. -- Cat chi? 07:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget about it. Arbcom doesn't care about evidence. What good would it do if the evidence is collected by impartial parties if arbcom is going to ignore it. -- Cat chi? 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Courthouse project
We're down to needing only five more courthouse pictures of Kentucky, that "Retired Username" started. It was 11, but I took six this past week. Thought you might want to know.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. :-) This was a great project. With the large number of counties in rural areas, the driving time to cover the State made the Courthouse project a formidable endeavor. I appreciate the hard work that you and "Retired Username" put in to it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I plan to take pictures of Nicholasville's ACW monument and Camp Nelson on Wednesday.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak-Hillock arbcom case
Hi, you recently signalled your intent to accept a case on Kuban kazak. It is not my position to direct you to change your intent, however, I would like to ensure that you have read all the statements which were submitted to the case in question after you signalled your intent to take this case on board. In the event that you haven't kept up with developments on the case, could you please review the case again, and consider if it does in fact require arbcom intervention. Thanks. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I kept abreast of the discussion but thanks for letting me know. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Email
Hi FloNight,

I sent you an email last night (: Please bear in mind I don't want Elonka to be damaged. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky River gorge
Has your hubby taken any pictures of the Kentucky River gorge by Camp Nelson? I was too much in a rush to take pictures of it yesterday, and it would help my new Camp Nelson Civil War Heritage Park article.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply on Bedford's talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other thing I can really think of is an old train station at 701 S. Broadway in Lexington. I like doing articles on old stations; I'm fixing on improving the Stanford one soon.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 22:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like trains and train depots, as well. I originally come from Huntington WV, which was a planned town built by Collis P. Huntington.
 * Sadly, the Southern Depot on South Broadway in Lexington was demolished on July 11, 1992. We lived in Lexington back then, and I remember when it happened. It was in terrible shape by the time we move to Lexington in the mid-1980's.
 * The Stanford article re-write is fantastic. :-) I showed my husband last night and he was thrilled as well. We have a few more pics of the depot and the park around it, iirc. I'll look to see if we have anything that would help on the article. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess no one bothered to get the Lexington station delisted. I'll need to go out eventually and take pictures of the few remaining monuments on List of Civil War Monuments of Kentucky.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Privatemusings. --  MBisanz  talk 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look. Interested to see the comments. Sorry for the slow reply, for the past week I've been traveling with limited internet access. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom_Bharatveer
This is in response to your comment in Arbcom_case.Regarding this,(Bharatveer), you have mentioned that "Last year's editing restrictions did not stop the disruptive editing so this year a different approach is needed." As you know, User:Toddst initiated this case after my edits at Binayak Sen, an AFD proposed by me (Hindu Taliban) & Chandrayaan. Please see my contributions. All of my edits in this particular article were about cleaning up the article and adding more references. Please see the talk page, where I had tried to initiate discussions on this. Please note that it was me who had asked for admin intervention in this article. Please note that other editors (SPAs) were in no way adhering to WP policies. Even in this situation, I had reverted as per WP:3RR. I hope you will notice that I have not "disrupted" this article in any manner. Regarding my other 2 edits, it should be noted that those edits are in no way "disruptive to WP" in any manner. With due respect, I request you to reconsider your earlier decision.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Piotrus 2
I think you wanted to support the Fof on Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Proposed_decision because of line 383 here, but forgot to sign? Wanted to clarify. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers
Who are the several other checkuser who have invaded my privacy? WHO? Giano (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "confirmed and reviewed by multiple checkusers" I want the name of every single one of these people. Giano (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith
You wrote: "[Piotrus] does make assumptions of bad faith about other editors". Could you point out where I have done so, so I can reflect on the specific examples and use them to improve my conduct? Thank you, PS. On the subject of good faith, you may be interested in this thread on talk:proposed, this thread on workshop, and this mini-essay of mine (it's not very long, and it may give you further insight into my actions and thoughts). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I will give a longer answer to your question in the next several days. I need to finish reviewing all of the ruling as proposed. I was planning to contact you and Irpen about taking another try at a voluntary agreement. Do you think that is doable or is it dead in the water? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1000 banrstar question is: a voluntary agreement to what? Current proposed decision, which puts an end to him going around various foras in this project and slandering me, is what I've been asking for all this time. To the best of my recollection, I have never commented on Irpen's behavior outside a dispute resolution procedure that we were both a party of, and I don't follow him around, criticizing his (nonexistent in any case) content creation (thus I have no problem with the current restriction preventing us from discussing one another, although I do think it is a bit unfair in its current wording which may imply to an uninformed observer that we are both guilty of discussing one another, even through I don't discuss Irpen). If you think I should promise or declare something, please let me know; I have already in the scope of this arbcom recognized that there are certain issues I should address - thus I promised to pay more attention to BLP, avoid edit warring even more than I already do and to avoid the word neo-Nazi, and I am open to working with a mentor(s). Unfortunately, there are things Irpen has been asking for that I cannot agree to - like admitting I am the head of the revert-warring GG-coordinated Polish cabal :) If you think there is some agreement that would help us, please don't hesitate to suggest it; as far as I am concerned, I want simply to see an end to his years-long tactic of going around and portraying me as the "evil incarnate" on this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. I also want to thank you for considering 25.4 and supporting it. I consider this finding very important per my statement here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The DG/Giano situation
Can we at least have a motion or even just a member of ArbCom tell DG directly that the way that this whole situation was handled was so far below optimal, that he created the very situation that he was trying to alleviate? Not to mention that if ANYONE was going to block Giano, it shouldn't have been him! SirFozzie (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the arbcom are clearly afraid to fire him, I think we need a full and very frank and very public exchange of views and reasons on this. My patience is running out. I hate secrecy and I won't be party to it for very long.Giano (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, patience has never been your long suit, but I think it is your friend in this situation. These checks and your block highlighted some of the weakness with the way that ip checks are managed. People that are interested in fixing the problem have the opportunity to vote for ArbCom candidates that want to fix the problems that have been exposed. The issue involves policy and practices about doing checks as well as personnel issues (who has access). In January, I anticipate a robust discussion about how to address the way that checks are managed. There is still an open request at RFArb, if you think that action is needed could you spell out more clearly which policy was violated by whom. Newyorkbrad has made a suggestion to David and is considering making a motion. Let's see how the situation plays it's self out over the next day. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, "weaknesses"? While I have seen a small number of checks in the log that I objected to, I am naturally curious as to why you think this particular check exposes a "weakness" in the management of the checkuser function. Thatcher 14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For a start, inadequate methods for recording, discussing, and consulting about checks and the actions needed. You and the other checkusers had no way of knowing that this account had been discussed internally with the Committee years ago and was a known account of Giano's. If you had then the discussion between the involved people would have been very different, I think. Based on this situation and other recent cases, we need to find better ways to communicate with each other. More later. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see where that discussion leads. Unless we are talking about special rules for Giano again, wouldn't this mean that all identified socks would have to be run past arbcom and checkuer-L to see if it is an approved sock?  One time Alison told checkuser-L that Kittybrewster was taking on a new account name for privacy reasons.  Within a few days, the new account had racked up multiple complaints for his editing and suspicions of sockpuppetry.  What to do then?  Or consider the time I was checking a proxy range and found two notable and controversial admins sharing several IPs.  I discussed that quietly for a long time with a small group of checkusers and arbitrators before taking actions.  Small groups inherently have less information than a large group.  If there is a requirement to discuss findings with larger groups (to make sure that any prior approvals are uncovered) won't this result in telling a much larger number of people about scandalous-sounding situations and doing more harm than good when it turns out there is a reasonable explanation? Thatcher 16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It exposes a weakness because you behaved like three naughty schoolboys on a fishing trip to try and find out information you had no right to. Except you are not schoolboys you are three grown men, wrongly given huge responsibility. God knows what you were planning to do with it/are planning to do with the information you hoped to get. On the last occasion Gerard discussed it on IRC - been there lately have you Thatcher? You checkusered what you knew to be a harmless spoof - that was not even a secret. I had even discussed running Lady C for Arbcom on my Wikipedia talk page! Then you dare to insult our intelligence by saying you thought it was Greg Kohs - FGS! Is that really the best lie you can come up with? No one believes that, not even you. Your great mate Gerard already knew who I was, can you not get that into your head! You all deserve firing, and that is what is going to happen. The longer this is dragging on the angrier I am becoming, if Jimbo or the Arbcom had a single care for the privacy of those that write this encyclopedia you and your cohorts would have been fired 36 hours ago. Giano (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where it says on Lady C's talk page that she is an acknowledged open secret account. Show me where, when I asked Lady C to contact me, that you replied with a diff to your talk page discussion that would have made the situation clear.  Assume, for a moment, that I had no prior idea who Lady C was, that in fact I had never encountered her, read a post by her, or even knew of her existence before Avi asked me about her candidacy.  (I know such an assumption will be difficult for you to make but in fact, my Wikipedia experience does not revolve around you or your circle of friends.)  From that assumption, tell me what clues I missed that would have told me that the account was (1) your sock, (2) an open secret, and (3) a joke that was ending soon.  You could at some point take some responsibility for your own failure to communicate.  For the record, my only off-wiki communications on this matter have been emails to Avi, Jimbo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill, and Lar.  I have not been on IRC in months.  Ironically, if I had gone on to IRC to ask whether I should check the account, someone there probably would have been able to tell me what was going on without the need for a check. Certainly communicating with 50 admins instead of 3 would have increased the odds of finding someone who both knew the score and was on line at the time.  But of course, IRC has no value. Thatcher 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it has no purpose what-so-ever, you have yet to find a lie to explain why you emailed Gerard - Oh yes, it was because you knew he has already checkusered. Thatcher you can squirm and lie all you like, you are in this up to your filthy little neck, and you are caught. Greg Kohs!! I suppose Alice Reighly payed Kohs to write her bio? Yeah, well, right Thatcher, really plausible that one, your smart obviously going places! - pull the other one Thatcher, it has bells on. FGS just resign and take your cohorts in crime with you. Giano (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never checkusered you until after the results were clear. I checkusered an account with a few warnings on its talk page and a suspicious arbcom candidacy.  You could have derailed this whole thing with a straightforward two sentence answer to my question. And you keep avoiding my questions.  How, exactly, based on Catherine's talk page, was I supposed to know in advance that it was you?  I already answered, oublicly and privately, why I included Gerard in my email.  Would it have been better to ask my second opinion of the entire Arbcom-L list, or the checkuser-L list, or #admins?  I was attempting to be discreet and careful.  I may retire (this is only one of the stupid dramas and downright unpleasantness I have been involved with as a checkuser) but I will never resign.  Another irony, which I'm sure you will not believe; if you wanted an insider to advocate for higher standards for checkusers, I would have been your best choice among the current batch, at least until now. Thatcher 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Giano, the longer this drags on, the more ridiculous your position seems to become. Seriously, why would Thatcher lie about what he did? Logically, what could he possibly gain by lying as you say he did? I don't know about David Gerard, but your anger at Thatcher is totally unfounded. He saw what was obviously a sock of someone else, and since the user in question was running for ArbCom, he did what anyone would have done in that position. He asked the account to identify its parent account, and when it refused, he ran a check. I fail to see how this is an issue. How was he supposed to know who it was if they refused to tell him? What followed after the check was unquestionably wrong, but it was not Thatcher's fault either. Thus, I cannot understand your anger at him. Essentially, from what I can see, you are mad at Thatcher because he did not already know that Catherine was your sock. So you expect him to resign or be fired simply because he is not capable of reading people's minds? Or because he did not act based on knowledge that he did not have? J.delanoy gabs adds  16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Giano's world I breathe, therefore I lie. After Poetgate, I offered to tell anyone who was interested whether they were discussed on the checkuser mailing list during the time period when PoetGuy had access.  Giano asked, and I told him "no" (which was the honest answer), and replied that he thought I was lying.  So why bother asking?  Who knows.  Anyway, I think I'm going offline for a while. Thatcher 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC) That's a little heavy. Thatcher 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't. I went offline for awhile, and look what happened.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my emailed reply to Thatcher, when he said I had not been checkusered:
 * I was not being rude. I was asking a factual question - can you prove it? the answer is (it seems) - no. Not really good enough is it? Thanks for the information you did provide. Wikipedia and its management are long overdue a large kick up the ass. This is a world renown major site (one thing we can probably agree on) yet it is run with less efficiency, reliability and professionalism than a children's creche in the backstreets of Palermo.
 * I think I stand by every word of that. I don't believe I accused him of lying - I asked him for proof - I deal in proof and fact, it's how I know instictively when others are economical with the truth. Giano (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But how could Thatcher or anyone prove to you that you had never been checkusered in 2008? Seriously, how could that possibly be proved? (Except perhaps by sending you a printout of the list of all checks that were ever run during the time period so you could check that your name was not on the list&mdash;which would of course have been a violation of the privacy of everyone who was on the list.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So Brad, what has the Arbcom done about this situation so far? In emails yesterday to you and others I said I was prepared to ignore Thatcher and the other one, if gerard was dealt with. So far I see nothing has been done. It is left to me to sort it out, and prevent similar abuse. According to you, I should not be cross with Thatcher, I should not be cross with the other one - presumably I should not be cross with Gerard because he is the pet of Jimbo and the Arbcom, and let's face it no-one is allowed to tell Jimbo that his tame checkuser is a lying cheat. Who invades and violates privacy at a whim. Why is this? What services does he perform for you all, that give him such protection? Giano (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no connection or association with David Gerard whatsoever and he has performed no services for me of any nature (I don't even know what that means). I have evaluated his actions and those of everyone else on their merits and have a question currently outstanding to him on the RfAr page. In the meantime, you have not answered the question I asked you above, perhaps because it is unanswerable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as Jimbo and the Arbcom allow the likes of Gerard to have checkuser rights, you have no right to ask any questions of any of us. The less information any of you are trusted with the safer the rest of us are. Giano (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, the block was unambiguously misplaced - very few people appear to be disagreeing with you on that point. The rest of your objections, however, are being met mostly with universal disagreement. Before your responses become so heated that another hugely dramatic event occurs, you should take some time away from Wikipedia to calm down and think cooly about what happened and what should happen next. Avruch  T 17:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This problem with Gerard should have been handled long ago. In fact, I was going to use him as an example in a question to all candidates (but that page seems to be protected now). So, in the light of the current arbcom elections, let me ask it here;

Imagine a powerful administrator who wants to silence some political opposition. He enters into an edit war on a Wikipedia project page and censors all criticism of his pet cause. He then protects the page on his version and even threatens to move it to Meta where he can more effectively control the content. The criticism he removed was civil and came from administrators and long time contributors.

It goes to the arbcom and parties present their cases in the usual way, except for this admin who presents his case behind closed doors, in complete secrecy. None of the other parties can see or respond to what he says. Furthermore, he's on the arbcom mailing list by virtue of his previous arbitratorship, and is therefore 'in the room' as the arbitrators discuss and decide the case.

He walks away with no consequences for his behavior.

What do you all think about this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC --Duk 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Since you've got experience, the job of a member of ArbCom is equivalent to what kind of job in real life do you think? I don't expect it to be pretty :) 211.30.109.24 (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus out of control again
In case you're wondering why I sent him an unkind email a few months ago, this is the kind of dishonest editing I've had to put up with from him and his allies (in this case, Radek) for over half a year. I hope this will be remedies soon. It's a disgrace and embarrassment to this project that it has gone on this long. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Boodles, please stop making untrue statements and dishonest accusations. I am not anyone's "ally". I hardly know Piotrus. It is your attitude and editing that is disruptive and an embarrassment. You have a history of not being able to calmly discuss content with other editors without resorting to these kinds of personal attacks. You have a history of a close mindlessly pursuing your own agenda on various articles, inability to compromise and trying to effectively block anyone you disagree with from making input on particular articles' content (hence trying to claim 'ownership' of particular articles). You misrepresent other editor's edits and when challenged resort to inapplicable wiki lawyering. This is what has been happening on this article, once again. Again, please stop spreading false misinformation.radek (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Boodles and radek, I'm reviewing evidence and alternative proposals in the Piotrus case. I'll take both your comments into consideration when I make my final votes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's an ally
Thank you for your consideration. And yes, Radek is a Piotrus ally. Lets go to the videotape: Here's Piotrus putting out a thinly disguised call for edit warriors on his preferred forum for recruiting allies. Less than an hour later, Radek shows up at the article with the first of a series of aggressive edits in support of Piotrus. So yes, ally is correct. As to Radek's accusation of "Wikilawyering, well that just tickles me, if you read through Radek's contributions here, here, and here. As for Radek's claims that I am spreading "false misinformation", well, I don;t know if that's better or worse than spreading "true misinformation," but I'll let the record speak for itself. Cheers, Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, so I appear to be guilty of having Poland related Wikipedia notice board on my watch list. Honestly, before Boodles turned up I interacted with Piotrus once or twice, when I first joined Wiki. But since Boodles (and his allies) insist on talking about me behind my back (i.e. without alerting me of their statements) I put Boodles' page on my watch list, which led me to working on a couple (that is exactly two) articles which Piotrus also edited, since basically Boodles appears to stalk Piotrus. And hey, I will even plead guilty to agreeing with Piotrus on several occasions. But come on, it's not like me and Piotrus actually get together to discuss edit war strategy or anything .radek (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL stalking. Piotrus has kept record of my every move for six months, has filed countless detailed complaints against me with detailed diffs lovingly noted. He knows more about my editing then I do. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you "stalking" Piotrus is just my impression. Honestly I have no idea what it is you two do to each other. This still leaves you making accusations about me being an "ally", "making aggressive edits" and other innuendos. Whatever happens with you and Piotrus, I would appreciate it if you left me out of it.radek (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus bogus 1RR report
Filed (and rejected) here. He just doesnt give up. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Boody clearly violated the 1RR restriction, the evidence of that is painstakingly clear and simple (2 reverts within 10 hours). That he hasn't been blocked is simply an example of ANI inefficiency when faced with tag team involvement, muddying the case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence
Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More witch-hunting, shopping for verdicts. Make your case where everyone sees it in the proceedings. -PētersV (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The FoF against me
Please see this and at the very least please at least make a comment on the way Molobo's presented his case.--Stor stark7 Speak 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg
Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration and he has recently posted a pledge in the workshop (see discussion here). Perhaps an alternative, more merciful remedy could be proposed (same for stor stark7)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, hope that milder means than a permanent ban might be considered with a view to assisting some of our more temperamental colleagues in moderating their excesses and focusing on the central tasks of Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Deeply saddened
Really? The arbcomm doesn't make policy. I'm disappointed that you're on board with nonsense like that. Guettarda (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing it internally to see if we are truly writing policy. So far, I don't see that we are adding anything new. AE noticeboard exists to discuss sanctions. Unless there is massive Community support for it, an admin action done to apply Arbitration sanctions should not be reversed. ArbCom cases usually happen because the Community can not agree on an issue. Our rulings are not going to change the mind of all people. If any single admin can undo a sanction without Community agreement, then we accomplish nothing with the case. Of course, WP:IAR still applies. So if an admin goes on a blocking binge in the name of a ruling, then it can be undone. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some deep concerns about the waters into which the AC is wading. Most of my concerns can be found in this conversation with Newyorkbrad, but I've also dealt with the concerns in my statement regarding the motion. Though you may not view it as such, nothing in WP:BLOCK to what the Committee is currently proposing. If this passes, the relevant policy will need amended. I'd be interested in your response to my concerns. S. D. D.J.Jameson 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Traditionally Wikipedia policy is community practices not the exact words as written on a policy page. This approach mirrors real life. Since it is impossible to cover every situation, we don't try to write everything down. Because the rules are not all written down, but learned from experience, all users might not knew the rules so we need to explain them sometimes. I see the motion as the Committee explaining the rules as they always existed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the very least, the motion as it currently stands amends WP:BLOCK. There is no proviso -- written or implied -- found there making the action of a "first mover" blocking as AE enforcement somehow nearly inviolate. Just as the judgment that a particular action violated an AE condition is left to the acting admin, so should unblocking. Should common sense be applied? Yes. Should this be codified by the AC creating an addendum/amendment to a policy? No. S. D. D.J.Jameson 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that the Community accepts the Arbitration Committee, with our many faults, because they want the stability that comes from having finality to decisions. In order to have this stability we must include a reliable way to administer sanctions. Allowing admins to unilaterally overturn the enforcement and replace it with their own opinion detracts too much from the mission of the Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that admins sometimes use the guise of AE as a club? If you do, then why does the initial blocking admin get the benefit of the doubt, but the unblocking admin does not? However it is framed, the motions as they currently stand create new policy, whether as addenda or amendment. If we want this to be within the scope of arbcom, I have no problem proposing as much at the VP. As arbcom's scope is currently measured though, it does not seem to be allowable. S. D. D.J.Jameson 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the primary concern. Whether or not the community "accepts the Arbitration Committee" this isn't what we accept it for. No one in the community would ever vote for any candidate who said something like "Yes, the ArbCom can rewrite policy whenever it pleases." There's a simple way to get this up for consideration: raise it on WT:BLOCK. If the community agrees to it then it will pass. If not, it won't. I'd probably be in favor of this, but I'd be surprised if 50% of the community supported such a measure. That should be a warning sign that the ArbCom is potentially stepping outside its bounds. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For ArbCom to set out the enforcement of their decisions doesn't seem to me unusual. For instance, if this had come in a case that created the particular restriction, I don't know that anyone would have noticed a specification as to how it should be implemented. Deciding that "any admin" may block for a repeated infraction, or "any uninvolved admin," or that there needs to be consensus, etc., seems already to be standard course. If you read NewYorkBrad's version, I think it also shows how effectively the same result can come about based on existing policy. I think this is part of the idea behind the motion. Mackan79 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

SV Motions

 * Just to note that I left you and/or other arbitrators a couple of questions here. Given your vote on Nyb's motion (which did address one of them), I'm not sure you've seen them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You may think this short cut is useful today, but it's this pursuit of short-term expediency over justice that's got us where we are. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If this was the first or second case about SV, I would agree. Or if she was a new-ish administrator that merely needed some feedback. But that is not where we are. If you look at the RFArb page, the Committee regularly uses motions to handle situations with users that have prior case sanction. This is within our norm. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo, could you say whether you feel FT2 was uninvolved enough to block Giano? You wrote to me in April to say that both were in the wrong and were driving you nuts. That seemed to confirm in my mind that FT2 was definitely not someone who should be taking admin action against Giano. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to make this clear...your use of the tools is under discussion now, that is what the Committee is addressing. If you had concerns about FT2 block, then discussion at AE was the correct approach. Or start a RFC on FT2. Unilaterally overturning a block does not fix the situation. If your opinion was supported, then a community discussion at AE would make it clear to FT2 that he did something outside Community norms. Your original independent action, and then equally troubling decision to assign Fred Bauder the sole right to re-block, did nothing to solve the underlying issues that you said that you saw as a problem. Giano will have gained more confidence in the administrators if he sees that as a group they are willing to reverse poor choices. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That short-cutting justice for utility is normal for arbcom, is part of my point. If the community were flourishing as a result, that would argue in favor of continuing to do the same thing. Tom Harrison Talk 18:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't simply have "concerns" about FT2's block. I see FT2 taking admin action against Giano, or anyone else he's in such clear, long-term conflict with, to be absolutely inappropriate, and obviously so, as you yourself implied in that correspondence months ago. Blocks like that should be overturned immediately so that admins understand they can't go around blocking people they're in protracted, vitriolic disputes with.


 * I don't know where you get the idea that I "assigned" Fred the sole right to reblock. What would that even mean? I told Fred I wouldn't reverse anyone's else block, because I had no intention of wheel warring (i.e. unblocking twice), and that I wouldn't have unblocked had the blocking admin been uninvolved.


 * But you are failing to address the key issue. Given that you clearly believed in April that both FT2 and Giano were in the wrong, you can't believe months later that FT2 was uninvolved enough to block Giano. So why is no action being taken against FT2? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are failing to get the point that your opinion in a matter does not give you the right to unilaterally undo a decision made by an admin. If you have concerns that an administrator is too involved, then that needs to addressed by talking to them about your concern. Or discussed at AE. My opinion alone about a situation if stated on site would not be the controlling factor about a matter. So in my opinion, for you to rely on something that I said privately about an unrelated matter continues to show poor judgment. Additionally, an admin being too involved alone may or may not mean that a block should be overturned. The full issues of the situation must be taken into account.


 * I realize that having your tools removed is upsetting to you now. I hope that as time passes that you will benefit from the break and come back rejuvenated. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset, and I'm not writing this because of upset. I'm asking why you're not advocating action against FT2 for blocking someone he's been in conflict with, or against David Gerard for blocking and checkusering someone he's been in conflict with. Could you answer that question, please? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Advocating for action is not in my job description last time I checked. Again, if you have a concern about FT2 or David then follow the appropriate steps in the dispute resolution process. As Giano knows, I have indeed followed up about his concerns related to David Gerard involvement. Your lack of knowledge is likely because you were not directly involved so I did not discuss the matter with you. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution has been followed. FT2 initiated a case. As you know, that normally means the ArbCom looks at the behavior of all parties. I am asking you to explain why you did not look at the behavior of FT2 in blocking a user he was in long-term conflict with, a conflict that you told me months ago was "driving [you] nuts," and for which you blamed them both. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not bring a case against FT2 or David. Why if you saw a problem? There has been no substantial evidence offered to support your claim. My months old opinion about FT2 and Giano is hardly evidence. Or course, you can offer the diffs to show a problem and I will reconsider. As a first step, I suggest that you start a RFC if you see a problem as I doubt a case can be made for a desysop and this might give FT2 needed feedback if the problem exists. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A case was brought involving me and FT2. It doesn't matter who brought it. The possible wrongs were (a) an inappropriate block and (b) an inappropriate unblock. The ArbCom normally looks into the behavior of ALL parties. But in this case, you looked into (b), but not into (a). This despite the fact that you personally know that FT2 was involved in a long-term dispute with Giano, one you told me back in April you had tried to mediate. So you needed no evidence; in fact, you probably know more details about their involvement than I do. Yet still you ignore FT2's role in this. That is clearly unjust, not good for Wikipedia, and not good for the ArbCom. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 20:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring anything. I'm answering you, right? We only look at involved parties if there is a case made. Your comments about FT2 and Giano on my talk page is not part of the dispute resolution process and come late in the process. If you had raised them days ago, then I could have looked into it further. I have no clear memory of the situation. As often happens with users with sanctions, Giano dislikes the arbitration committee. And he has stated that he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of blocks under the ruling. Since FT2 administered one of the blocks, any decision about him being involved from a conflict between them needs to take that dynamic into account. So, I'm not certain that your take on the situation is as clear cut as you make it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What has Giano recognizing blocks, or failing to, got to do with anything? The facts of the block and unblock were not in dispute. What was in dispute was the appropriateness. I'll ask you again: given that you KNEW FT2 was involved in a long-term dispute with Giano, and that you didn't need me or anyone else to tell you about it, and given that admins aren't allowed to block users they're involved with, why did you not, of your own freewill, of your own volition, out of your concern for what benefits Wikpedia, out of your concern for ethical behavior, out of your concern for making sure admins exercise good judgment (all of which seem to have kicked in regarding me), not investigate the appropriateness of FT2's block?


 * Why did you not say to yourself something like, "Gosh, here we have that FT2 hammering away at Giano again! This has been going on for months. I've even tried to mediate between them and was driven nuts by them. And coming so soon on the heels of a David G block and checkuser, when I know that David and FT2 are friends, it doesn't look good. Well, given that we luckily have an RfAr filed here anyway, it's the perfect opportunity for me to take a closer look and make sure both parties in the dispute are dealt with fairly, otherwise it might look as though we're out to protect the arbitrator." SlimVirgin  talk| edits 21:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Those are excellent questions, Flo, and I hope that you will give them full consideration, and will also look at my questions here and here. It's deeply disturbing to see that the outcome of this case is based partly on the fact that SlimVirgin has been in trouble before, when the last "trouble" was because she supposedly made unfounded allegations in public without going through the proper channels, even though the committee received evidence that private attempts had previously and unsuccessfully been made, and even though the committee has been unresponsive to my earnest request for clarification about why they felt it was acceptable to leave the impression that those accusations she made really were unfounded. ElinorD (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo...in your comments on the proposed remedies of this matter involving SlimVirgin, you seem to indicate most of the issues surrounding SlimVirgin are of her own making...I couldn't disagree more...from what I have seen, she has been the persistant target of a bunch of jackasses that have either been misusing Wikipedia to create drama and/or have been making her the top target at the Wikipedia Review troll forum utilizing that offsite venue to misinform, malign and toss excrement at her whenever she tries to hold the line against the marauding POV pushers and bad hand single purpose accounts that permeate this website. Are FT2 and his actions never to be reversed? Since when did he become Jimbo Wales? Frankly, when we are going to enact legislation that gives trolls a victory and gives those who stand guard over problematic areas the shaft, we are descending down a very dark corridor.--MONGO 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo... it's distressing to me to see you twist and turn and slip from the grasp like an eel in your replies to SlimVirgin. I'm looking forward with something like dread to your reply to ElinorD, assuming that you will make one. Thank god I've bowed out of the ArbCom election! I could have been on my way into this soft-thinking and (on your part) soft-spoken morass at this moment—destined, apparently, to pussyfoot round the moral and intellectual shortfalls of FT2 like the rest of you! It's hard to imagine myself.. but I expect it would have been hard for you, too, to imagine yourself in such a role before it happened. Why, actually, are the arbitrators in the grip of such a destiny? Has it been decreed by Jimbo Wales? Is it esprit de corps? Is it that FT2 relieves the rest of you of some intolerable and time-consuming chores? (For FT2 is indeed hard-working.) Bishonen | talk 00:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC).


 * Please answer my straightforward question with a straightforward answer. Two admins are parties to a case. One admin blocked someone he was arguably involved with, which he perhaps shouldn't have done. The second admin, objecting to his involvement, unblocked without discussion, which she perhaps shouldn't have done. The ArbCom examines the actions of the second admin, but not the actions of the first. The question that screams out for an answer is &mdash; why? SlimVirgin  talk| edits 06:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse SV's question. I also think this is a relevant place to ask for how long has this matter been "old news" to the Arbcom? Thank you. Giano (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. :-( Strong evidence needs to be presented, not on my talk page, not late in the game, but in the correct venue at the correct time. The statement that you made was largely an opinion piece without diffs or other supporting evidence. As an experience administrator you should know the correct way to present evidence for a case. Also, we routinely reject cases as premature if no other means to address an issue have been tried.


 * Based on the information provided (I read all the on site comments at RFArb and AE, emails submitted about the block and the motions (including ones from both of you), and the old cases), I agreed with members of the Committee that felt immediate action was needed to address some issues, and  motions were made to address them. Obviously, halting the civility sanction on Giano needed immediate action to stop any possibility of a one months block or other controversial blocks. It was largely felt that a motion was the appropriate way to address long standing concerns about you (SlimVirgin).


 * If you see a problem with FT2 (or David Gerard), I recommend starting a RFC to get views from the rest of the Community and give FT2 feedback. Regarding the oversighted edits, Thatcher's statements of the situation is the most accurate one that I've seen. I intend to make a fuller comment about this issue, but I need time to review the recent information and follow up with Jimbo. I'm not someone to shy away from doing informal or formal peer review. If I'm not satisfied with the answers, I will ask more questions. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not for the community to give "feedback" on to FT2 on election tampering, it is a matter to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. It now seems that the Arbcom have known for some time that David Gerard tampered with FT2's edits during the election, I am begining to wonder if these wre not Arbcom sanctioned edits. You are all fast enough to deal with matters when there is achance to sort me or de-sysop SV, but seem very reluctant to put your own house in order. Giano (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly was not aware of the oversighted edits and from the comments made by other members of the Committee and Jimbo, I think tampering with the election is highly unlikely. I think pushing this line of thinking is going to muddy the waters and is not wise. There are real questions to be asked and answered about the use of oversight on those edits. I intend to get these answers. It is my understanding that Jimbo is looking into the situation, again. He has already asked questions several times since last December and evidently he did not receive any information that caused him concern. Now that fuller information is available, he is asking David and FT2 more questions. I'll inquire further about what he found out after Jimbo is available. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it appears to be "old news" to at least one Arb, perhaps the Arbcom's communication list does not function as effiently as it might. I will watch with interest to see how and if this is investigated, but it does indeed seem odd, that I with no powers at all, can discover things that all of you with all your mighty and wonderous powers cannot. Don't you agree? Giano (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo, it is by its very nature tampering with the election. FT2 was standing for ArbCom. An editor turned up on FT2's questions page asking about FT2's evident interest in and knowledge of human-animal sex. He asked the questions because he felt voters had a right to know about that interest. He didn't get straight answers. He became annoyed and said something about reporting FT2 to an animal welfare group. This was interpreted as a threat and he was blocked. He posted something about it on his blog and included links to two of FT2's earliest edits, which show knowledge of human-animal sex. In response, David oversighted them, though they don't tend to identify FT2 so far as anyone can tell.


 * To do this during an election campaign is inappropriate for obvious reasons, not least of which is that, had voters known it had happened, the election may have turned out quite differently. In addition, six months later, FT2 claimed he knew nothing about it &mdash; didn't know his edits had been oversighted and had never even heard the claim before, which strains credulity.  SlimVirgin  talk| edits 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, as someone that talks to you and the Committee regularly, I can say that the Committee and you often receive information about situations around the same time. As you know, often the information is exaggerated, or faulty in another why that makes in plain wrong. We both know that the information that people send us is sometimes dodgy and perhaps meant to deceive us so we make poor decisions. Like you, the Committee does not rush to judgments based on rumors and unsupported claims. When and if good information becoames available then we can act. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we cannot trust the word of Thatcher and Fred Bauder who both comfirmed the oversights? Giano (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm saying that we (Giano and FloNight) did not have any information about the oversighted edits until recently. Jimbo did not this information, either. Now that the information is available it is being looked into by Jimbo. He said on his talk page that he does not have time to address the issue until the end of the weekend because of his travel schedule. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the concencus of opinion is that the reaons given were against policy. Whatever the reason - it is never wise to act in sensitive areas for friends. Perhaps IRC had closed down that evening and no one was there. Giano (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

SV motions
Hiya, Brad forwarded me on to you :) Your thoughts on User_talk:Newyorkbrad would be much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait 24 hours from when the motions passed and then close them all. Send an email to the mailing list saying that is what you are going to do. And ask for an arbitrator to make the request on meta for the desysop. I'm going to be away so I can't do it myself. (I just now signed on for the day, so I'm assuming that none of this has happened yet.) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted the arbs about this too.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2 and David Gerard
Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly ), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see here that one of your colleagues is,unusually for him, reticent to comment, is this a view shared by the Arbcom? Giano (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thursday was a holiday in my country, and I was away from my Wikipedia most of the day. After I get caught up reading my inbox and the on site comments, then I will make a further comment. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, I thought you all seemed more full of Christian spirit and goodwill yesterday then normal. Giano (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus and BLP violations--what the evidence actually shows
In case you hadn't seen this chronology, which I posted elsewhere

Piotrus' ignoring of BLP was part of a sustained and aggressive defense of Greg Park Avenue's adding a series of nasty commentary that was not only in complete violation of WP:TALK, but was agreed by multiple observers to be clearly both violations of BLP and anti-semitic. (Some of Greg's later comments also had to be refactored after they were deemed anti-semitic). If you review that extended period, it is clear that rather than being "momentary," Piotrus is intervening aggressively on behalf of an editor who had engaged in days and days of off topic and offensive rants. The synopsis below clearly establishes that this was neither monetary nor benign, but rather, an inexcusable, days long exercise in admin bullying and abuse of authority:

On May 14, Greg opens the hostilities (his first talk page post) with this uncivil post and heading] (and note by "Disruptive activity" Greg is referring to my edits--all of which have been upheld, while all of greg's have been deemed improper.)

I reply

Greg responds with an absolutely clear BLP violation.

I remove Greg's antisemitic and BLP-violating rant (with an unequivocally clear edit summary).

Piotrus restores the violation, amazingly claiming it was "censored for BLP purposes."

I remove it again.

Piotrus restores the clear violation AGAIN, amazingly claiming I had violated WP:TALK by removing (rather than "refactoring" it (as if such a venomous rant with no relevant content for TALK could be "refactored"!)

I refactor, noting it was an anti-semitic rant (which numerous thrid parties agreed with subsequently)

Piotrus accuses me of violating NPA and amazingly demands I respond to greg's rants "in a constructive manner" (as if removing anti-semitic BLP violations wasnt constructive)

I note that antisemitic posting are more serious violation of WP policy.

I reply to another absurd post by Greg (in which he describes reliably sourced major newspaper reviews as "trash" and calls his use of a university press promotional website "a scholarly source").

Tag team member xx236 chimes in

I reply to the rant.

After more intervening pointless ranting, Greg posts yet another antisemitic, BLP-violating rant. (Two days AFTER Piotrus intervened in his defense the first time.)

I reply to an xx236 rant, with it's clearly false accusations.

I remove Greg's second antisemitic BLP violation.

Greg restores it, claiming "vandalism".

I remove it again.

greg restores it again, complete with bizarre edit summary.

I remove it again, complete with a CLEAR EDIT SUMMARY: "delete per WP:BLP Per BLP, do not revert"

despite my clear indication of the BLP issue (not to mention the clear BLP violation easily noted by reading Greg's post) Piotrus restores it with a bullying threat. This is three days after his first intervention on behalf of greg, with numerous violations and rants in the record clearly visible, on a page Piotrus is clearly monitoring and is indeed editing himself in league with Greg. (See edit history of the article during this period).

I reply

another editor removes the BLP violation.

I reply to another Jew-baiting rant by Greg.

greg responds with a personal anti-semitic attack.

I warn Greg.

Greg adds YET ANOTHER anti-semitic BLP violation (and note the laughable example he dredged up from the web).

Piotrus responds 3 minutes later in support of Greg.

On May 19, Gamaliel removes the BLP violation. It stays removed. On May 17, I had brought the BLP to the attention of another admin.)

Greg continues ranting and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fear:_Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_after_Auschwitz&diff=next&oldid=213517939 I reply].

Gamaliel replies to greg.

Poeticbent amazingly restores Greg's violation.

Gamaliel gets attacked by an IP

Note: The article talk page is still littered with BLP violations (word search "Thane" to see.

Note that the above chronology not only demonstrates clearly that Piotrus' intervention was not a "momentary" lapse, but was indeed a sustained and belligerent effort, but it also establishes that Greg initiated the hostilities, and utterly puts the lie to the fabricated claims by Piotrus that I "harassed greg", that greg's "attitude" is "much less problematic from the bad faithed attitude Boody displays" (note the content of Greg's posts!). As well, the above demonstrates that the following "evidence" supplied by Piotrus (link) is a complete lie:"There is an important issue of whether greg was baited (as I believe he was) into his more emotional statements by Boody's confrontational attitude over the past few months of their interaction (analysis of Talk:Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, where I believe those editors first met, should provide relevant evidence to address that)."

And who does Piotrus cite in "support" of my supposed "slandering accusations of antisemitism"? Poeticbent! Case closed.

Forgive the length of this posting, but I believe it is necessary to clear up the endless obfuscations Piotrus creates with his endless series of little white lies, which have a tendency to culminate in a big lie. The evidence should speak for itself. Boodlesthecat Meow? 19:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on me
I realise you are not my biggest fan, and I'm not yours, but having voted on a previous poll means only that I voted on a previous poll. What else do you think is going on? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My job is to look into situation and find solutions. Sometimes that means giving feedback to users. I truly am sorry if you feel my comments are too harsh. In my experience, when an user comments in a poll and then later uses their tools in a related matter, it almost always complicates the situation. Whether you have a strong bias or not, unfortunately, the perception will be that you do. This makes it harder to issues to be resolved. Since I barely looked at the situation, I do not want to make you out as a problematic user, but I do think this is an example of why the situation is not being settled. Sorry to single you out. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But you did, did you not? So why be sorry. I commented on a poll, sure. I commented based on policy and encyclopedic standards, the same basis I perform admin duties. What difference does it make ... it wasn't that poll, and there are no rules about it. Yes, there's perception, but please read my comments on Tariq's page (the first one). I actually didn't determine the result of any page move I performed (though I could have through many days), because of that. I took a good-faithed judgment derived from an AN/I thread which doesn't even nearly violate any policy, after an RM had taken place which 4 admins versus 1 admin (the mover, who declared that he didn't see all the polls, that he didn't care and that he wouldn't reverse himself) thought was against consensus. I don't have the greatest veneration for the paranoia of wikipedia's ideologue community, but the situation couldn't have remained much longer per comments Angus Mclellan had made. I took an administrator action, which some users didn't like and were never going to, and you rushed to raise the question of my conduct after one of them complained without looking into it. You are an arb. This could make my life very difficult on wikipedia. Fair enough, I could have been on some British nationalist gadu-gadu arranging to undermine true community consensus, or I could have misjudged what the admin feedback on that AN/I thread was, or I could have been totally right. But you couldn't know this as there's no evidence and I haven't defended myself (and generally, I am cautious about defending myself unless I need to). Couldn't you have emailed him or something if you thought that point was worth raising? You are surely not naive about these things. Perception ... a word you used! ;) It seems now that the biggest task facing me on wiki as an admin is not helping in disputes like this, but doing so without random condemnation from "above". Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, I removed my statement. I can take nonsense from the nuts and crazies, but I'm doing something impolitic if not something wrong when, among all the craziness, I'm getting this kind of thing from arbs. If arbs want to force me to get involved, that is another matter, but I seriously don't see where you're gonna get any dirt from. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I really did not mean to make you out to be a problematic user. That was the reason that I did not use your name in my comment. But I felt I needed to communicate my thoughts to the other arbitrators about whether the case should be opened or not. The Community recently has been vocal about wanting the Committee to express their thoughts on site as we do our work. Back to the point of biases in decision making. People that have a bias often aren't aware of it, that is the problem. We need to guard against it by separating the use of our tools from the content area we work or comment. Wikipedia has plenty of admins so there is no need for an admin to close a consensus discussion when they have given an opinion. It is an easy mistake to make. Just about every admin has done it at one time or another. No one is perfect, right? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight, please see my comment on this topic on Deacon's Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Innuendo about particular admins the thing to get the ball rolling on arbitration process transparency? And if bias is used so broadly to mean that all people have it, what is its significance? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)