User talk:FloNight/archive 10

Spring in Kentucky

Athletics project alert

I recall you mentioning somewhere an interest in this, so thought I'd point out this. Just looking at FAs and GAs, athletics is certainly underrepresented compared with various football codes and cricket. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange goings on

[1] looks kind of fishy and Weirdward has virtually no history, but seems to know about previous discussions and who people are, which seems to indicate to me that he's either vandalising or is a sockpuppet. Tweety21's page (which was the subject of the diff) says that the user requested to be blanked, but then kept coming back with sockpuppets and that you should be contacted? I don't know if you wanted to do anything with any of this, but I thought I'd let you know. Banaticus (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have been reverted. Suggest ignoring for now. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail ...

... from me ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Scientology votes

Ah, thanks; I'd missed those. Kirill [talk] [pf] 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology case Henson

You voted a finding against me. I wouldn't mind that if there was substance and if it was in the context of an action against me, but why was it placed in a case where I have not contributed to the topic for more than a year? (And only twice in my entire history on Wikipedia.) Keith Henson (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not so that you have only made two edits within the Scientology topic. You have often edited your own BLP which falls within scope as well as other biographies, including the Barbara Schwarz attack page. You have also contributed to discussions within the topic. In, for example, the Barbara Schwarz deletion discussion, to which you contributed considerably, you raised your off-wiki problems with the subject as partial justification for keeping the article. This exemplifies the committee's concerns about the blurring of off- and on-wiki roles and the capacity this has for inflaming on-wiki disputes.  Roger Davies talk 10:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girl chat

How you been FloNight? Let's have girl chat. — JoJo • Talk • 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) I've been having a nice holiday weekend. How are you? FloNight♥♥♥ 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok. R, the kids, and I have a quiet life. We made special food for this weekend. R, you know, sometimes he pee baa (crazy) but he very good man. — JoJo • Talk • 22:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, FloNight, that picture, Spring in Kentucky, you take that? It is very good picture. — JoJo • Talk • 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We (my husband and myself) took that photo last May at a Japanese Friendship Garden near our house. Yuko-En on the Elkhorn. We enjoying taking pictures and uploading them to Wikipedia for articles. I stay behind on writing articles for the photos since I have loads of work to do for ArbCom.
This weekend we went to Cincinnati and we took photos of a house that was used as part of the Underground Railroad. So far, I have one good source of information about the house. When I find a few more then I'll start an article about it. What are you writing about lately? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just fix up stuff on Thai articles. Sometimes I vote on things. — JoJo • Talk • 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkback follow-up

Hi Flo, hope you and the family are doing well. I just wanted to touch base a bit, and perhaps you're already aware of some of this. On the WP:RIP issue, Bibliomatic (sp), has stepped-up and evaluated consensus, and then he/she followed up and created a proposal for a guideline. There's been an effort here and there on it, nothing major, but at least now we have something to work with. I did have my road trip too. On the way down (Pittsburgh PA area to Birmingham AL) we took the 79 South route through VA, rather then down 65: much rain .. lol. Anyway, on the way back, we cut over to Knoxville, and came up into Kentucky (I just love the beauty of your state). While we didn't stop and spend much time at any of the horse farms (apologies if that's not the proper term), we did travel some very beautiful land. Basically we went across 64, but time constraints reduced my photography wishes greatly. I got a couple shots here and there - and I'd like to stitch together some panorama views in the near future - suffice to say, I love the beauty of your state. I definitely appreciate you giving me feedback on both the RIP issues, as well as the personal trip suggestions. Thanks again. — Ched :  ?  15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more question

If my only edit to an article is to remove a WP:POINT action of a disruptive editor ([2], on a featured article), does that make me involved? The Committee has gotten so strict on this, I feel the need to ask. Jehochman Talk 20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi Flo, I read that you have an interest in BLP issues. I wonder if you would have time to look at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)? There is a pitch battle going on between COI editors (who on the whole seem to be handling it all quite reasonably) and quite negative inclusionists by their own admission (who are bordering on disruption). Looking for another NPV here, I don't want to see an article whitewash, but I am concerned about violations of BLP and the apparent disregard of it in some cases. Cheers, Amicaveritas (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting :Locus of dispute as written

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed on diffs

Hello, FloNight. I bring in with some pointer for correction. When you deleted "two diffs", you said "removed one".[3] I'm not sure why you removed the User_talk:Teeninvestor#Tenmei. If you want to say about "Teeninvestor's canvassing" to uninvolved editor, that may be a good example. If you concern about Blp user (..part of the cancer that's destroying Wikipedia.), Tenmei's attack page is in the same category (toxic-edit warrior blah blah). And Tenmei "thankfully" deleted his enemy list "today"[4], so that diffs need to be corrected as well with this more correct diffs.[5][6]

Anyway, thank you for your hard work on the case. Best regards.--Caspian blue 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report

Congratulations, you were mentioned on the Colbert Report on Thursday, June 4th! You're famous now! Congrats, Matt (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous or infamous. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was also suggested that, perhaps, you are a member of a certain cabal. If you would like to make this official, photo submissions can be made to me via email. ;) لennavecia 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests_for_comment_Is_Skinwalkers_evidence_acceptable_and_can_I_be_allowed_additional_space_to_respond_to_the_accusations.3F--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's mentor

Hi, FloNight. I just want to know(since the case will be speedily closed now) who will be Tenmei's mentor? Teeninvestor (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undetermined at the present time. Will let you know when it is decided. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will the mentor have any special powers over Tenmei? Because I think that if the mentor doesn't have much power, it will be pretty helpless.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, a mentor is like a coach mostly. But if they see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FloNight -- This brief exchange bothers me; and I think it is seemly for me to say so. These sentences appear to presume that I have accepted ArbCom's decision as confirming some kind of wrong-doer label. NO.

The further presumption that more problems are expected is quite undeserved. NO.

Any expectation that I am prohibited from interacting with Teeninvestor is reasonable; however, the notion that Teeninvestor shall enjoy perfect freedom to further poison this already awkward situation is both unworkable and unreasonable. NO.

Let me repeat anew. I have apologized for nothing -- nor should I have done. Rather, in light of the way this ArbCom case developed, I am assuredly convinced that I'm owed an apology from Teeninvestor precisely because the harm I've endured thus far was so heedlessly inflicted. I don't expect such an expression of contrition to be forthcoming, but that does not in any way affect my appreciation of the travesty which has unfolded in this ArbCom venue.

The finding of fact that my persuasive writing skills are inadequate in a Wikipedia setting is arguably understandable; however, to conclude that, because of a perceived communication skills deficit, it must be also true that each and every one of unchallenged or inadequately rebutted allegations are true, valid or proven is patently wrong. It is quite simply over-reaching. NO.

This is one of those cases in which Teeninvestor and Caspian blue can't have it both ways; nor should ArbCom accept, presume or encourage any notions of anticipated adverse consequences.

Do you not perceive the disjunctive logical patterns which are at play here? --Tenmei (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wikistalk me, Tenmei. Tenmei exclusively rejected ArbCom's findings on his disruptive behaviour, which shows that he will continue this behaviour in the future. This is quite worrisome, and shows that the sanctions on Tenmei are ineffective and harsher ones are needed.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Just saw your vote here [7]. The question is: what, in your view, means "related to this topic area"? Since I have never taken admin action on matters pertaining directly to the naming issue itself (other than dealing with socks and vandalism), how far do you take the "related"? Have you seen evidence that my stance on the Macedonia naming issue has ever tainted the trustworthiness of my admin work in other Balkan- or Greece-related areas? As I said to Jayvdb earlier today, I'm open to constructive suggestions on where I should draw the line, and in any case, I've been quite conservative in my use of tools for the last year at least. Have you looked into what I actually do in terms of tool use, and what my relation is with the editors involved? I mean, it's not as if any significant amount of evidence of such activity was ever presented at the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that administrators with Finding of fact and sanctions in an Arbitration case should not use their tools in that topic area indefinately. I don't think that "naming" aspect of the situation is distinct from the other Balkan- or Greece- nationalist discussions, so I think that you would need to abstain in the full Balkan - Greece topic area.
I do not think that you should continue to do what you term "non-controversial admin work" (from you email) because when someone is heavily involved in the issue then they lose perspective about what is non-controversial and what is. That is the one reason that admins need to abstain from working in the area. The other reason is perception. When someone is sanctioned, they will have a harder time getting people in the related topic to see any of their work as routine or "non-controversial."
Passing of time does help if the person distances themselves from the topic. It is a recipe for trouble in highly controversial topics after you have been sanctioned for you to continue to edit articles in the area, make expert opinion type comments, and then also do admin work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to look at what I actually do. It figures you haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is sanctioned, they will have a harder time getting people in the related topic to see any of their work as routine or "non-controversial."
Tell me about it! ;) You should see what I went through for informing a user about case restrictions! (click) Never again shall I perform more than 6 reverts in any two week period. It's my special 6 revert rule. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J&S application

Hi FloNight,

I respectfully direct your attention to this. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we discussed this internally. I'll see where the breakdown was in the follow up with you. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been answered. [8] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Roger found the thread on the arbwiki. I agree with his comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to assume that the ArbCom didn't actually intend anybody to apply for a permission to participate in the guidelines discussion when it announced that editors may apply for such a permission? That doesn't strike me as entirely logical, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised after the decision to ban five editors who have incorruptibly stood up for WP's stated principles and applied them impeccably, save for letting themselves be dragged into an edit war with nationalist editors that kept removing eminently well-sourced content for ideological reasons. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite. I guess that arbitrators simply had second thoughts during the discussion, which came several weeks after the arbitration case closed, probably affected by the realisation that editors in other very similar cases (date delinking, Macedonia, and Scientology) might expect the same relaxation.  Roger Davies talk 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC) copied from my talk page[reply]
Three questions:
  • Was there a similar "relaxation" offer in those cases? I quote:

"Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area."[9]

  • If the offer has been de facto retracted (due to, as you speculate, second thoughts), why is it still there?
  • On what formal grounds was my application rejected?
MeteorMaker (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC) copied from Roger's talk page[reply]

Courtesy blanking

As you suggested, I expect it to be done for the talk page of Proposed decision since the page is filled with "irrelevant matters" to bash me. I want to move on, so the appalling ad hominem attacks should be blanked out. --Caspian blue 23:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a clerk to courtesy blank the case talk pages. They should do it soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercession needed

Please refer to User talk:Giraffedata. Even though numerous editors have objected to his obsessive removal of the gramatically acceptable term "consists of" from hundreds of articles, he defiantly continues to do so. Your assistance here is appreciated. Contributions/209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need your advise, please

FloNight, I saw your comments in the current EE case, and agree with you and Kirill. I asked Jehochman a question in my statement, and I also tried to politely talk with him. Now he is going to ban me. He refers to this my old AE request telling that I tried to "game the rules". Did I? Should I stop editing EE subjects for a while, as Jehochman suggested? Should I stop commenting in this ArbCom case? I have always wanted only to help the project. If I am becoming a problem, I prefer to stop editing voluntarily. I trust your judgement. Could you guide me in a proper direction, please? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening

Ask questions if you don't understand me. Don't assume I'm ignorant.

AE has much less bandwidth than arbitration. The Scientology case had hundred of pages of evidence and discussions.

We need an in depth look into several years of editing history by several editors. AE cannot handle this job.

If you don't understand me, ask, don't dismiss. Jehochman Talk 21:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your thinking but I disagree. The Scientology case is a major exception to the rule and not the way that we are going to handle cases. Leaving cases open for many months while the problem continues is not the answer to the problem. Admins are capable of looking into the editing history of users and issuing editing restrictions. We have given admins the tools to do exactly what we do in this topic area. Admins are free to use subpages to record material to share with the involved parties and other admins to explain why a sanction is needed. Talk to other admins if you want more help or a review. Get some new admins that recently passed RFA involved. They often have enthusiasm and are eager to help. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation at WP:AE is appalling. You suggest sending newbie admins up against gangs of nationalist edit warriors. Good luck with that strategy. I'd be more impressed if you took a few moments to ask about the nature of the problem and showed some interest in actually solving it, rather than waving your hand and saying let them eat cake.Jehochman Talk 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, I now agree with Jehochman that this case needs to be opened, but for different reasons. I've updated my comments in the case request. --Martintg (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't sanctioned anybody yet. Already Martintg and his chums are screaming adminabuse. Flo, don't you see that we administrators need more support to carry out your plan. Help. Do something useful, such as dismissing frivolous complaints of adminabuse so we can get on with our work, or better, sanction those making frivolous complaints. Such behavior is highly disruptive. Martintg is instigating complaints against me on multiple pages. I need backup. Help, or take the case and deal with it yourselves.

Do you seem my problem here? Are you listening yet? Jehochman Talk 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your approach to handling the situation has inflamed the matter. You come across as having some hostility toward some users in this topic area. You need to work toward deescalating the situation since the whole point of sanctions is to create a less hostile working environment. I recommend choosing your words more carefully when talking about other editors and admins. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, there are disruptive editors who will raise a fuss no matter how gently somebody tries to deal with the situation. I am dismayed that you would support a disruptive editor's ability to declare an administrator his enemy and then disqualify that administrator from action. You are enabling disruption. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This situation is more complex than you describe. And in any case, an admin needs to role model good communication skills by wording their comments in a way that will caused the least offense to the involved users. It is important to remember that there are people behind the user names that need to be treated with respect irrespective of the problems that are having editing the articles. If you find yourself unable to comment about other users with making comments that are laden with inflammatory words or otherwise add heat to the situation, then I think you need to take a break from the situation. Soliciting for extra help on AN or AN/I almost always gets some good extra help if the request is written in a way that clearly explains why more admins need to help and specifically explains how they can help. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested help.[10] Please explain how the situation is more complicated. I am very interested in any insights. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochmann was seeking a ban of Digwuren in 2007, already, long time before he even became a sysop (an event I've come to thoroughly lament now). Here he is two years ago, posting an 'independent view' on Digwuren's 'checkered history' [11] and endorsing another problematic user's suggestion that Digwuren should be banned outright [12]. Jehochmann's aim is not so much making the EE area more peaceful, but getting a number of users banned, in a rather asymmetric way I'd say. --Miacek (t) 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My username has one N, not two. Digwuren was banned by ArbCom, not by me. Following the activities of disruptive users is part of an admin's responsibilities. I have never edit warred with Digwuren. I have no editorial conflicts with him whatsoever. I also do not have any personal connections to him. We don't battle off wiki, nor work together, nor have we ever met in real life. As for the content of EE articles, I am quite agnostic. Policy says that confronting a disruptive editor does not make an administrator an involved party. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taysha Smith Valez

I've restored some material you removed from the Taysha Smith Valez article. I think we both believe the claims are not credible, but they do represent the claim to notability for subject and should remain for the duration of the AFD so other editors can review and form their own opinion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to have material about a living person that is not referenced to a reliable source. People need to evaluate the content based on the material that will remain in the article. I won't revert you, but I hope that you will reconsider and instead remove all the material that does not come from an independent reliable source. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and very understandable. I've reverted myself, and placed a note in the AFD discussion itself so that editors are aware of the claim to notability. Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete user/disc pages; warn jayron/redpen/mufka

Hello flonight, If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.

I requested speedy deletion on 1Apr for reason 1.6. jayron deleted it, then acted as if s/he did me a favour. I feel jayron shouldnt have been the one to delete it initially as s/he and I have negatively interacted in the past. Followups from jayron included an unneccesary block; followed by telling me to get a yahoo email so that I may contact wiki admins!

Wiki is all about anon editing : as such I didnt and wont get an email account in order to communicate as it is not required.

Since then jayron,redpen, mufka have been repeatedly editing my page. I blank my page they restore it. This has been happening since April, so for 3months now. I bet if I changed their pages they'd posting threats of "i'll report you" and/or "you will be banned". It is quite easy for me to get a new ip address but I dont think Ive done anything wrong, so I wont change my ip address.

If my pages needed to be restored /reverted, I definitely think those three arent the ones who should do it as they/I have a convoluted history.

If you could please delete my page and page history, I'd be much obliged.
If you could contact jayron, redpen, & mufka & ask that any problems they have they let an admin or arbitrator know, instread of making changes or posting to me. I'd like to edit wiki in peace Thanks. 173.79.58.33 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg park avenue

Regarding this discussion, has there been any response from him yet? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. We are waiting for him to reply still. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for your reply on the RfC. I understand it must be quite distressing for you and the other members of ArbCom, who have a rather thankless task, to find that a proposal made in good faith should generate such negative responses. I commend you for remaining civil during this, especially since not all people who disagree with you have been civil. On that point, if any of my comments have come across in an uncivil manner, I wish to apologize to you and anyone else I may have offended. My desire for clarity can often lead to bluntness.

Looking at the ArbCom talk page, it appears you have been considering this ACPD for a while. The problem, as I see it, is that you discussed it only among yourselves, which led to the drastic difference between your expectations and community reaction. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I think it would have been better for ArbCom to have started its own RfC on the concept of the ACPD. This would have given you the opportunity to clarify points that others found unclear and given the community the chance to understand the qualifications you were looking for in members of the ACPD.

Something that should have made the members of ArbCom pause is the strongly negative reaction of the community to the idea of self-elected groups at the RfC on that topic. Of course, you and the rest of ArbCom, as well as many members of the ACPD, may have not had the chance to see that RFC or even known of its existance.

This is an area where several members of the ACPD have failed ArbCom badly. Fully half-a-dozen of them participated in that RfC and while most of them had no problem with self-elected groups, they had a responsibility to inform you that response to the ACPD would probably also be highly negative. I'm also concerned by the level of incivility shown by a few ACPD members on the existing RfC.

Both of those issues leave me questioning what standards were used to chose members of the ACPD. OTOH, before this, two members who failed to properly inform you about the self-electing groups were editors that I would have cheerfully voted for to hold any position on Wikipedia. Now I am questioning their (and my) judgement, since they opposed the creation of self-electing groups at that RfC, yet saw no problem with joining the ACPD.

Finally, I admire Kirill's courage and leadership in accepting full responsibility for events. I am distressed that he chose to resign from ArbCom and am hoping he will reconsider. I am also distressed by the uncivil manner some editors have treated him for it. Edward321 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I plan to do more reading and reply today to questions and thoughts expressed by members of the Community. I think the point you make about the self-electing group RFC is an interesting one and something that I want to give a fuller a reply in a little while. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I really don't appreciate you trying to spin what I did with the RfC. I filed it in good faith, and yet once again you turn up to personalize things. Please apologize. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC may have been done in good faith, but it was premature, and poorly written. It is important for the flaws in it to be addressed so that the Community gets good information to make decisions about how to move forward with the idea. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki

In light of the recent events I think it might be a good time to make a new project proposal at councils and organise a project which concentrates on trasferring content from other wikipedias but in a may which is much more efficient and can done with no community concerns. If I make a proposal in a day or two can you comment as I fele we both share the same view that it is important to transfer content from other wikipedias but done adequately as part of a project coordination. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let me know when you have a proposal so I can comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritas

I'll buy some for next time. Maybe you could run the blender.

The bad news is, my party is a dud (the only visitor peeked into the dining room, while I was waiting in the bar). I know, it's my own damn fault. The good news is, people stopped fighting (probably because they got bored, but that can't be proven conclusively, so I'll take full credit) so my cunning plan worked! Well, the other bit of good news is, I'm kicking back, listening to Jimmy Buffet, and there's all this free beer just for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. :-) All is never lost when beer and margaritas are involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

I just needed a couple of days to back off and cool down. Though this really wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision...it's been a while brewing, and things just came to a head with the ANI. Ah, well...I'm back, now, and don't intend leaving any time soon. :-)

Once again, many thanks. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 02:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of African Cemetery No. 2 (Lexington, Kentucky)

Hello! Your submission of African Cemetery No. 2 (Lexington, Kentucky) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I have created articles in my userspace and then moved them to mainspace before, but I've always just cut-and-pasted rather than actually moving the page. I didn't realize that moving the page preserves the history of the userspace as well (that's where the confusion came from—I misread the history and thought that the article was started in April 2008, when in reality it was started on July 23). Your hook definitely meets the requirements, so I have approved it. Sorry about the confusion, but this was definitely a learning experience for me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for African Cemetery No. 2 (Lexington, Kentucky)

Updated DYK query On August 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article African Cemetery No. 2 (Lexington, Kentucky), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

This is to let you know that your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Coords

Hi. I'm working on clearing out Category:Coord template needing repair. Would you mind if I fixed a couple of instances of {{coord}} on User:FloNight/Scott? The seconds need to be rolled over from e.g. {{coord|38|8|60|N|... to {{coord|38|9|0|N|....
—WWoods (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do what ever you need to do. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Done —WWoods (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flonight

If this is bad form to message you here about an arbcom, or if you personally don't like to be bothered about an arbcom on your talk page, let me know.

Although I am quite thrilled and thankful by one of your proposals, I had a question, which I mention here:

William M. Connolley temp desysop and admin tool topic ban

Thank you for your work. Ikip (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to respond. You had a really good point, which made me reconsider my views. Happy editing and have a great weekend, I have already wasted a good portion of my weekend on this accursed site. Maybe I should have my wife add a password to the admin account again, giving me the junior account. Ikip (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd-WMC

Re [13]. You're aware that I wasn't a party to the G33 case? I ask because [[14]]'s William M. Connolley and Giovanni33 are both parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 is misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic explains your level of involvement well in his comments which I link to in the Finding of fact. And I don't refer to you in a way that would cause anyone to see you as a "case party", so I don't think that it is a problem. You had a strong view about the user and said so in statements on the case, then edit warred, and then made a block. The consensus at the time was that you were involved and should not have made the block. That is the important point that you need to address. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm aware of that. You text though can easily be (mis)read to make it look like you think I was a party to that case, which is the question I actually asked you. It was a genuine question, not a rhetorical one, if you were unsure William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my answer makes it clear that I understand your level of involvement in the situation. I'm working on the editing restrictions for Abd now. I'll post them up for review. The main issue still open for me is if other users should be added to the case as part of this dispute. I'm leaning toward it because I want to get closure on some aspects of the situation now so that the Cold fusion article can reach a stable version based on reliable sources. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....and I saw this on my watchlist, Abd-WMC, and couldn't help but have this pop into my head:

♪♫♫ Abd... Easy as WMC... Simple as do-re-mi, Abd, WMC, baby YOU and ME! ♪♫

I have issues, I know... KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues, indeed! :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit, having a J5 song stuck in your head is so much better than that ArbCom case. Eww. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

But what does rescue mean? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC

For arbitration cases, recuse is when an arbitrator decides to not participate in the role of an arbitrator during the case because they have some type of a concern that they think means that they would not be a good judge of the case. Often this is because of some type of conflict of interest such when an arbitrator is heavily involved with editing a topic or an article. Or maybe an arbitrator already investigated a matter and spoke out in a discussion of the topic as a member of the Community so they think that they can not give an impartial opinion now. When an arbitrator recuses, then the total number of arbitrators is decreased by one, and the number needed for a majority is re-figured, too. Does that answer your question? FloNight♥♥♥ 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks!Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on one of your Abd remedies

I didn't understand the meaning of one of the provisions. Perhaps you could clarify before there are other votes? See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision#Question about "talk page in any Wikipedia space". Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other ambiguity noted by Hersford is whether you mean one per page, or one per day on any talk page. Cool Hand Luke 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll clarify it. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision

I'm surprised at how well you and Bainer have outlined the case, including many points that I had not considered.

In particular I wasn't aware of most of the tussles and disputes on the case pages themselves, which reflect very badly on some of the involved parties.

This is one of a series of important cases which have had the effect of clarifying the parameters of our science coverage. What is extraordinary here, however, is how little the dispute had to do with our coverage of science. It started as a behavioral dispute, and a relatively minor one at that, but underlying behavioral problems are being addressed.

I still don't know how to handle some articles in fringe science. It really isn't simple. It's a lot easier to write about a completely defunct scientific theory (like phlogiston) than one that isn't very credible but may generate interesting research. Everybody gets excited, and lots of words are written, but you have to find some way of grinding it all down to something useful. The fact that practically everybody is now online and twittering and blackberrying like crazy can only make this problem worse in the future. I think we probably err grossly on the populist side. We could probably save a lot of problems by emphasizing in the strongest terms that we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --TS 00:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a slight bijou problemette. Proposed principle 6:
All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy
Absolutely never should this pass. This goes against Be bold and just about everything else Wikipedia is about. It makes no sense. You're handing the off-site trolls a wide open goalmouth. They probably want to crown you queen right now. Is this really what you meant? Please consider what you are about to do. There's always some busybody who says some reasonable edit or admin action violates some aspect of policy. And it probably does, because our policies are not--not even intended to be--internally consistent. --TS 01:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon proposal at ANI

This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calipari

That's going to be a tough one. It's true that UMass had its Final Four vacated and Memphis is at risk of losing one, but Calipari was cleared at UMass and is not under investigation at Memphis. On one hand, it seems like a violation of NPOV to mention these if he was not connected (risking guilt by association); on the other, it may be relevant to the article in terms of discussing his career accomplishments. Many media types have been eager to jump on the "Calipari is shady" bandwagon, but there is no proof out there that he's ever done anything wrong. That's going to be a contentious article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]