| Revision as of 16:38, 13 February 2008 editFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:02, 13 February 2008 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits move to archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Archives ] ] ] ] ] ] | Archives ] ] ] ] ] ] | ||
| == Procedural Inquiry == | |||
| FloNight - I'm extremely sorry that the first message of the NewYear on your user talk has to be something of this nature, however I need to ask a seasoned admin a few procedural questions regarding a suspected sockpuppetry case that I have opened. In short form, the suspected puppet is claiming that the puppetmaster page does NOT belong to him / her, and has tagged it for deletion. As this page is source reference for evidence, its deletion prior to the acceptance, check and / or resolution of the sockpuppetry inquiry would, in my humble opinion, seem to negate the whole SOCKS issue. What should be done? ] (]) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll look, Give me a bit of time to sort it out. ] (]) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have not forgotten. Looking at it now. ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I went ahead and removed the template, under guidance from the template its self. All I need to know now is just how long it will be before this gets picked up for review, so we can put this issue to bed...] (]) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, removing it was correct. As for putting the issue to bed...good luck :-) I'll email you more thoughts about this later today. By the way, thanks for you help dealing with this. Take care, ] (]) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You're quite welcome, it's a concern that I had, and needed to be reckoned out either way. Like I've stated before, if it turns out false, then all the better! If it turns out true though, then something definitely needs to be done. ] (]) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#ST47 == | |||
| Thank you for your suggestion. I was following the request of admin ] as a WkiPedia Spam patrolman and noticed social engineering on ]. I do not know if I went at it the right way by bringing the matter to arbitration committee, but we should not be calling other editors Trolls, or any other labels, and I do not want to say them here or any other places! | |||
| So as you can see my grievances are not about the revert of the edit, but about the admin derogative abuse of a junior editor. ] (]) 15:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :An arbitration case is likely premature. Rejecting a case does not mean that there is not an issue at all. It means that other ways of dealing with it are likely better for now. Giving him calm feedback on his talk page or by email might work. An conduct RFC if that does not work is usually the next step, okay. An arbitration case is the last resort only if the Community can not settle it with out our involvement. ] (]) 15:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see RFC, honestly I do not even have intentions to do that, all I wanted to do is talk to the admin, but he just kept calling me a Troll, Troll. And to me the alias is very insulting. | |||
| ::He did not even bother to check why I started the petion on ]. I was left alone here on Spam patrol, while everyone went away for Ney Year. Anon users where social engineering the article and I thought back to protect WikiPedia community and authority. Why do we need a petition when we are a consensus community! I just wanted to induce fear into the Spammers so they would stay away! I was protecting the Fort, while everyone went partying, and for that instead of talking with me and asking me why I started the petition, he labels me a Troll. | |||
| ::Please check my edit history as a new editor, yes I make mistake but I am nv\ever insulant or desripectful to my seniors, and always enter into a discussion not to turn the revert back but to learn how to do things the right way. | |||
| ::ST47 as an admin is really a bad role model for new editors who work hard to contribute to the WikiPedia project. I have no idea how I should talk to him, if he keeps calling me a Troll and breathing fire down my neck. Thank you,] (]) 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps, the best solution is to walk away from the situation for now since you have made your feelings known. The Project is large and there are many other areas that can occupy your time in a way that is more fun. Editing here is suppose to be a leisure activity that bring pleasure so dwelling on the un-fun aspects can cause burn out. You or someone can re-visit the situation later if it is an ongoing problem. That is my best advise. Happy editng and Happy New Year. :-) ] (]) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sound like a good idea and I agree with you, but I am a Spam patrolman and will continue to do my work as a Spam patrolamn. He is also a Spam patrolman! I hope next time there is a situation that we face each other in the field eliminating Spam and protecting WikiPedia, he will show me courtesy and talk to me why I did what. I have no problem listening to him because he is my senior, and I will respect my seniors, but spend a fe minutes to talk! Thank you for your help and intevantion on my behalf to resolve the stale mate amiably. ] (]) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==1 Corinthians 13.== | |||
| If you haven't already, I suggest you try to catch the film '']'' which features it in a chorus. -- ], 2008-01-01]21:47z | |||
| :Thanks for the suggestion, looks like something that would interest me. ] (]) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RFAR Basboll == | |||
| I added another comment at RFAR regarding Basboll which can be read Please reconsider.--] 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Science Collaboration of the Month == | |||
| {| class="current" style="background: #E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #000000; padding: .5em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: 80%;" | |||
| | style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | ] | |||
| | '''As a regular contributor to ], we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is {{Collab-science}}.'''<br /><small>You are receiving this message because your username is listed on ]. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| ] <sub> ]</sub> 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfAr== | |||
| Hi Flo, may I note tha ther is a substantive differnce between "1) Jim62sch is instructed to refrain from making any comments to another user that could '''reasonably''' be construed as harassing, threatening, or bullying."(emphasis added) and "1) Should Jim62sch make any comment of a harassing, threatening, or bullying nature,..."? ] 21:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be good from an enforcement perspective to have the language be consistent. ] 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will don't see a major difference, but for the avoidance of doubt, as the drafter of the decision I will modify the enforcement wording as suggested. ] (]) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I thank you both very much. ''Reasonably'' should save us all from potential misuse of the remedies/enforcement action. I could explain the complete reasoning, but it would sound as if it were wikilawyering. :) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hello Jim. I brought this to the attention of Newyorkbrad and he changed it. From your comments, it seems to be satisfactory. Glad that the case has closed and hope everyone involved can move on. Happy editing. :-) ] (]) 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikisource and the public domain == | |||
| Greetings. There is a discussion ongoing on at regarding Wikisource and the public domain. If you have any comments, they could be helpful. All the best, – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Commented there. Glad to see you voicing your opinion about copyright issues there so we can all get on the same page. ] (]) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello! == | |||
| Hi there! | |||
| You had a good Christmas and New Year?? | |||
| hope things were well and good! ] | |||
| I've just been participating in the workshop at ] and have made some suggestions, which, you can feel free to give some feedback on. | |||
| Thanks, --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll take a look. ] (]) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Z-SG question== | |||
| See question on closing ]. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Kirill answered.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Centralized TV Episode Discussion == | |||
| Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --] (]) 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page == | |||
| Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, I'm still conducting a conversation about the proposed ruling. If you have an issue with specific editors, please work it out with them but don't close off discussion of an ongoing case totally, thanks. ] (]) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Personally, I think protection was a good idea (even though as admins more than a few of the involved parties can still edit it). The conversations taking place were serving no appreciable purpose, and it was inflaming the dispute on which the case revolves. <sub> I had thought to take it tp RPPP, but I figured they'd turn it down out of deference to the Committee. </sub> <sup>]]</sup> 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::My conversation was perfectly civil and had an important point to make. ] (]) 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, your comments are still there and available to be read by the arbs. Cost/benefit on protecting the page weighs in favor of the benefits, unfortunately. <sup>]]</sup> 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Re: , I make the requested promise. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Flonight, I think protecting the talk page is going too far - maybe for a day, but not for 6 days or until the case closes. There are people who will want to make relevant and helpful comments, and will be able to restrain themselves. Protecting the talk page merely disenfranchises them. If any particular editors are being disruptive, warn and then block them. Do you really want people to be reduced to putting {{tl|edit protected}} on ]? Is there even an accepted place to put 'edit protected' requests for protected talk page? ] (]) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a conditional in the protection summary. ] 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that condition should be made visible on the page itself, not hidden away in the edit summary. ] (]) 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And a further point. Flonight might have considered leaving talk page messages for those who, if they agreed to restrain themselves, could lead to her feeling able to lift the protection. But Flonight has not left such messages. In lieu of that, I will attempt to move things forward by leaving talk page messages for all concerned, asking them to sign a section here on Flonight's talk page agreeing to abide by the conditional she laid forth in her edit summary. Once that is done, maybe Flonight will feel able to lift the page protection and replace it with one of those "talk page calm" messages? ] (]) 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Flonight, I've just finished reading the threads at the talk page. It turns out that I agree with Giano that it is best not to add anything further, but this begs the question: If I had wished to say something, while the thoughts were fresh in my mind after reading that page, where could I have done so? Here? I am sure that people will want to comment on the proposed remedies as they develop, and I would hope that you would trust the community to be able to keep such discussion civil. ] (]) 05:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The alternative would be to ban Giano, Geogre, Bishonen and Phil from editing the case pages, on penalty of blocking, per the warning I originally posted on the workshop page, and then unprotecting the page. I'm not sure I will have sufficient attention to Misplaced Pages tomorrow to be able to monitor and follow through, though. I'll see what has transpired by (my) morning. ] 05:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, it raises the question; there's no begging here. I would love to trust the community, self-selecting though it is, to keep discussion civil. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that's possible with that group of people. I was about to protect and blank the page myself. ] ] 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or just take the whole thing ''in camera'' and sort out a complete decision and then post it (including votes in a set period of time) - then allow a bit of discussion on the talk page, allow arbitrators to change their minds as needed (eg. late evidence submitted or cogent talk page arguments), then close the case? Singling out four people would seem a bit harsh when arbitrators were also editing the page during this time. may seem helpful to some, and terse and unhelpful to others. Giano was in fact the here, Thatcher. ] (]) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On one hand the proposed decision talk page is a courtesy of Arbcom; they could announce final decisions without allowing any comment, although that would provoke great howls of consternation as well. Of course the entire episode is eminently unhelpful to Arbcom in trying to evaluate their decision, but the regrettable business that started with Phil's unfortunate choice of words was winding down; then the editing warring began. I'm concerned with edits starting at 20:22. Editors who edit warred appear to include Phil, Lawrence Cohen, Geogre, Avruch and Van Helsing. You are right that Giano and Bishonen were not involved in reverting the comments. ] 06:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I can't make much sense of the mini-edit war between Geogre and Avruch. Geogre removed a comment by Phil, saying "don't edit war", and Avruch restored it (quite reasonably in my opinion, I think Geogre's edit was a mistake). Avruch's only other contribution was to add collapsable markers - don't think that counts as edit warring (I wonder where the following lie on the scale: reverting, blanking whole sections and pages, adding archive tags, adding collapsible tags), and if it does, Bishonen's removal of them should count. If it really mattered (and I don't think it does) I think Phil's heavy-handed removal of the thread, and Lawrence and van Helsing restoring it, are what really started it all. I'll admit that Geogre's contribution (slapping Phil with a careless undo) was far less helpful than Bishonen's (a firm request that the thread remain visible), and Giano's contribution (an appeal for calm) was yet a third response and the best of the lot. ] (]) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Protect and blank the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision? That's the only fix you can come up with? With all the due respect and I mean that......you know, I've sat here for like 10 minutes not knowing what to say about that...I just give up...I really wanted to finish that discussion but it's gone out of me now. ] (]) 06:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My priority is to minimize disruption and somehow bring this case into harbor without the involved parties tearing each other apart. I am not especially interested in guaranteeing that uninvolved parties have had their say. I'm sorry but there it is. I have a responsibility to the community to minimize or eliminate disruption. I have a responsibility to the parties to review their evidence and actions, and to weigh matters as impartially as I can. That talk page helps me do neither, and was greatly inflaming matters. ] ] 06:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes sir. ] (]) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Protection of ]=== | |||
| On 17 January, following a series of edits to ], ] protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: ''"I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors"''. Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing ] at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. ] (]) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the page should stay protected, for the same reasons it was protected originally. If you have some urgent new insight, there are other ways to make yourself heard. The talk page had become a locus for continuing the dispute, and that is not its purpose. <sup>]]</sup> 14:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Agreement regarding ]=== | |||
| :''<small>Notification of this section was made as follows: </small>'' | |||
| Following the protection of ], the undersigned (both involved and uninvolved) agree to make , and hereby ask FloNight to please unprotect the page to allow civil discussion to continue. | |||
| # ] (]) 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # ] (]) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Sure, except that I don't want to edit the page at all; I object to unwriting (Snowspinner) and trying to cover things up. Seems to me that that warranted a warning. Meh. Protection is out, esp. when it's just one user breaking the rules. | |||
| # Of course. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I didn't receive Carcharoth's message on my talk page (presumably he overlooked me because I had not contributed to the particular thread). However I was warned twice by Newyorkbrad concerning other edits on that page and that's enough to tell me that I must have said something inappropriate. My contribution to this is that I have ceased discussing the case on the talk pages, and have limited myself to one or two comments on the workshop supporting the proposal for a civility parole. I don't want to ask FloNight to unprotect the page, however. Some very false and damaging things have been said on that page, and I would rather that those who have made them would withdraw them publicly. They know who they are. --] 15:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *This proposal is a typical example of Carcharoth's good nature and common sense; however, the context corrupts the words. Flo's page protection was fine since people were getting unruly, but the conditions on unprotecting are too narrow and, in fact, just an extension of the muzzling placed on the community with regards to #admins IRC. To repeat what I said on the talk page, the proposed decision is a joke. Through their , the Arbcom is accepting David as Wikipeia's chief censor and propagandist, apparently based on secret evidence that none of us may see. The arbcom contains more than a few neutered halfwits. For the first few years, the IRC leadership was happy to and watch the community struggle with #admins place. Now we've degenerated to the point where community discussion on this topic, when it asks hard questions or points out problems or tries to debate on a common form, is not tolerated. --] 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:(parts copied from my response on Duk's talk page) I agree. I initially asked FloNight to unprotect straightaway and consider using blocks (or strong warnings) instead. I'm still very unhappy about the length of the protection - 6 days is far too long - I would have had no objection to a single day of protection. I was kind of hoping that lots of people would sign up there and FloNight would unprotect. I am also still unhappy that she put a condition in an edit summary, but then didn't actually go and tell the people concerned. It was more a protect and walk away action, and I felt I was clearing up afterwards. At least I managed to get the pp-dispute tag to point unprotection requests to FloNight's talk page. What I am hoping is that an uninvolved party will want to comment on the proposed decision and will turn up asking why the hell the talk page is protected - thus demonstrating that FloNight's protection is (unintentionally) suppressing legitimate input from the community on the matter. In essence, my case is <u>''"but other people use that talk page as well"</u>.'' I also agree with you that this looks a lot like the #admins case repeating itself, with avenues for objection being heavy-handedly closed off in the name of "avoiding disruption". Sometimes there is a fine line between vigorous debate and disruption, but erring on the side of "suppressing disruption" can have a chilling effect on debate. Again, I have no problem with the arbitration committee coming to a complete decision in private and then posting it to allow discussion on the complete decision, but if you are posting the decision bit-by-bit and groping towards a solution, at least let the community help with that process and don't let the actions of a minority lead to talk pages being protected. ] (]) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I do not feel that I can fairly be asked to weigh in on this, given the degree to which I seem to be damned if I do, damned if I don't. In attempting to make a point about the needless hyperbole being employed on the page I used phrasing that caused reasonable offense, and caused a useless thread to develop. Upon retracting my wording, most of the participants in the thread also retracted theirs, and I figured, hey, the thread is in the history for anyone who wants to cite it as evidence, but it does no good for the case and I'll remove it. This met with objection, so I decided to just rescind my own comments. This, apparently, is also unacceptable. Who knew that a medium based on the ability to wholly and swiftly rewrite text would develop such a fetish for edifice and monument. In any case, I am hard pressed to agree to any shift in my conduct - I certainly do not promise to magically avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication, and beyond that I am unable to identify any action I took that was not in pursuit of reasoned, careful discussion of evidence and of the actual problems instead of the gotcha-style hit squad that the page has largely become. | |||
| *In any case, I have found that the sun shines a little brighter and that the birds sing a little louder since the page is protected, and thus have no reason or desire to see it unprotected. ] (]) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Phil, you may want to review ]. Specifically ]. Removing comments made by others is not acceptable. Factoring out your comments might have been, but you should have left something indicating the changed context. ] (]) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Unprotected === | |||
| Because it's probably the right thing to do, I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties can behave themselves. If not, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced with blocks, as described in the warning I put at the top of the workshop when the case opened. For a while it looked like that warning was premature, then things started to go down hill. It's not too late to pull out of the death spiral that so many tendentious Arbcom cases seem to get in to when they've been open a long time. ] 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please bring to Committee's attention == | |||
| . There is a fundamental problem with the entire weight of the proposed decision that no one has addressed yet. I posted it there as the talk page is locked. If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll bring your comments to the attention of the rest of the Committee. ] (]) 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1== | |||
| {| width="80%" align="center" style="border: 1px black solid; padding: 0em; border-collapse:collapse" | |||
| |- valign="middle" style="background-color: green; color:white" | |||
| |width="33%" style="padding:5px" align="left"|] | |||
| |width="33%" style="padding:5px" align="center"|] | |||
| |width="33%" style="padding:5px" align="right"|] | |||
| |- valign="middle" style="background-color: green; color:white; text-align:center" | |||
| |colspan=3 style="padding:5px"|<big>'''] Newsletter'''</div> | |||
| |- | |||
| |colspan=3 style="background-color: gold; text-align:center; font-weight:bold;border-bottom: 1px black solid"| Volume 2, Issue 1 • ], ] • ] | |||
| |- style="vertical-align: top;" | |||
| | | |||
| ;<big>Departments</big> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| | | |||
| ;<big>Features</big> | |||
| *] | |||
| | | |||
| ;<big>State and national updates</big> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=3 style="background-color: gold; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; border-top:1px black dotted;" | ] • ] • ] • ]: ] | |||
| |} | |||
| :<small>Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – ] —<sup>]</sup><b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Please help == | |||
| It is fucking harassing me at this point and doing nothing but sockpuppet and harass now. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == More evidence they're all BFP == | |||
| . This is all a horrendous waste on WP's resources and people dealing with this guy. Neutral Good has NOTHING to do with that situation. He has no relationship with Eschoir, Commuter, and doesn't care about Free Republic he claims. Yet here he rides to SC's defense. Please. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==IRC case proposed finding== | |||
| There are no previous findings or remedies in arbitration cases involving me related to incivility or personal attacks. This is the first time the matter has been raised at arbitration. --] 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought you had something related to incivility in the past. My mistake for not looking at the specifics of your prior involvment in the cases. ] (]) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oops, my mistake. There ''was'' joint caution two years ago, in which at Aaron Brenneman's suggestion I agreed that my name could be added despite the absence of a formal finding of fact. Our debate on the workshop had become a little overheated. --] 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Message for you on the Proposed Decisions talkpage== | |||
| ] | ] 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC). | |||
| ==New proposals== | |||
| I know its late, but I offer some new thoughts at ]. ] 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility restrictions == | |||
| Should it be uninvolved admins? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 20:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Did you intend this edit?== | |||
| looks like an unintended duplication of the page content, or something. --] 21:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Highways== | |||
| We were wondering why the Committee has been mostly silent about this case? Also, when do you believe that this case will be moved to voting? Thanks. --''']''' (] ]) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :We are discussing that right now. :) We have a draft of the case written on our private arbcom wiki that I'm going to review and see if it is ready to move on site. So hopefully soon. ] (]) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. --''']''' (] ]) 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your vote== | |||
| You wrote: | |||
| : ''I do not see the downside to making this official as opposed to relying on his good intentions'' | |||
| I agree on this (early on in the case I suggested a civility parole and my opinion hasn't changed). Having findings but no parole in this particular case would make it rather more difficult for me. I suspect that this remedy, passed visibly, would also make an end to this affair more likely. --] 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That is my thinking also. Glad to see that we are in agreement that it would bring more benefit than harm in this situation. ] (]) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| I have no motivation to file a ], I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP ]. Please see the post . Best regards! --<font color="#617599" face="Courier New">]</font><font color="#999999" face="Courier New">]</font> 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Jeffrey O. Gustafson arbitration case == | |||
| I very much agree this was the right thing to do accepting this case. If I did something like he was alleged to have done, I'd probably be de-sysopped and/or blocked/banned. | |||
| However, on mu userpage, I've declared that I have a friend who edits from this IP address (albeit not very often!) - and since you're a Checkuser, you can indeed verify that! However, as is said, Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust. | |||
| Anyway... how's things?? --] (]) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Amusing as it is...== | |||
| ...I don't think you really intended to write "I have always...discouraged administrators from going out and searching for instances of '''civility''' between users". --] 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : ;-) I fixed it. ]] 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think I agree with Carcharoth's comment, addressed to a person who, while technically a party to the case (he's on the list of those involved), is blameless: | |||
| ::: ''This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"?'' | |||
| ::<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| ==Wording of the "All parties cautioned" remedy== | |||
| I'm in favor of the committee reaching consensus on who, precisely, this is addressed to, and a form of words that identifies them (this would of course include me because without my initial act of gross incivility this case would not have arisen). The words might be exclusive ("All parties" -> "User:A, User:B, User:C,..., and User:Z are strongly cautioned") or inclusive ("All parties" -> "All parties, especially User:A, User:B..."), whichever satisfies the committee best, but I do think a more specific remedy have more teeth, by making it plain exactly who the committee has its eyes on. --] 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring at WP:WEA == | |||
| I noticed your comment . Could I ask you what you think about the role played by the other parties that joined the edit war? Specifically the people involved in the edit war laid out ]? By the time you get to AzaToth's revert, it should have been clear ''to everyone'' that continued reversion was not productive. So my question is why did AzaToth, David Gerard, Betacommand, Irpen (joining Geogre and Giano) and Ryulong join in? Did they ''really'' think they were helping to calm the situation down? Part of the reason editors develop problematic conduct issues over several years is that they are not told early on what is and is not acceptable. Would you agree that a message needs to be sent that ''prolonging'' and ''continuing'' an edit war is never acceptable, and that people really should check the page history to see if there is an ongoing edit war? ] (]) 14:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :IMO, it was unhelpful. In the heat of the moment, often users are not aware that their individual edits taken in larger context are making the situation worse not better. ]] 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Why would he stay? == | |||
| I too wish that Giano would stay and continue to participate in Misplaced Pages. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, he is an incredibly valuable contributor; from the personal perspective, I have learned a great deal about editing and greatly value the encouragement he has given me. Giano's mainspace edits are legendary, and his contributions on the meta side have significantly improved content and behaviour with respect to "The Troubles," addressing paedophilia-related activity on this site, abusive blocking and transparency here on Misplaced Pages. His meta positions have been supported by the wide community despite his sometimes excessive zeal; many who "opposed" Giano's election to Arbcom commented that he had the right ideas but his approach wasn't suited to being an Arbcom member. It is difficult to know whether the changes in Misplaced Pages culture could have been made without Giano's rhetoric and focus on issues. Let's compare the defense of !! and the granting of rollback to non-administrators: Both involved walking very fine lines and pushed the community hard into a new direction, with high-flying rhetoric and violation of WP conventions. Giano got warned for being rude and violating unwritten rules (which remain unwritten, as the community cannot come to a consensus on what those rules are); Ryan Postlethwaite was invited to join a special Arbcom subcommittee. | |||
| Just about anyone can make the list of administrators who would be watching every word written by Giano, ready to whack him with a block, whether deserved or not. One snippy comment in a FAR. One snotty response on his talk page. Another Eurocentric allusion that goes over the average American's head. "Obscene trolling: knows German" may well be the standard. Heck, there are several statements in his ] - a poignant and humorous final gift to our community - that would incite some admins to block him. And no AN or ANI discussion, just another report to ] that nobody questions or reads. And if someone does question the block, then we're back to the drama that nobody needs - not the community, not Arbcom, and not Giano either. From that perspective, with such a huge "kick me" sign pinned to his back, who can blame Giano for walking away? Hundreds of others already have. ] (]) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The choice was his to engage in highly provocative behavior that is well outside of policy and in my opinion has impeded the Community from writing a reasonable IRC guideline. Misplaced Pages is based on the idea that decisions will be made through calm collaborative discussion. It is impossible for that to happen when several editors raise the level of discourse to the point that most thoughtful people give up and walk away. Giano has a history of doing this. My goal is to re-focus his enthusiasm toward supporting our dispute resolution processes to achieve his goals. I opposed remedies that would stop his participation in Misplaced Pages policy making as I do value his opinion. As a high profile editor he needs to lead by example. Please encourage Giano to return as I feel that Misplaced Pages will be a better place with him here. Thanks for your thoughts. ]] 14:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You could have done more for him to be here, Flo. I am sorry you did not. I am not singling you out claiming this is all your fault. This is the collective fault of ArbCom (so, partially of you) + other members of supersikret Arbcom-L plus the smaller but more prominent part of #admins which has a problem with the concept of decency. | |||
| ::"our dispute resolution processes" fail miserably when dealing with these issues. Every single change with the #admins problem, the problem that the community started to deal with since the infamous Carnildo affair was achieved only when Giano demonstrated the corruption in the most dramatic way. When others tried different methods, nothing was happening. I know the Arbcom and Jimbo like it quiet and peaceful. But real problems being dealt with is more important than everything ''looking'' as if nothing is going on. --] 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Irpen, do I have it correct? Are you accusing the bureaucrats of corruption over the Carnildo affair? --] 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a side question, Tony, but your suggested answer is a big oversimplification on what I think. --] 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Okay. Wild accusations of corruption seem to be quite common these days. Please think before you type. --] 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Tony, please read what I write and don't put words in my mouth. --] 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've read your clarification. You didn't intend any accusations of corruption. Fine. --] 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup == | == re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup == | ||
Revision as of 17:02, 13 February 2008
| This is FloNight's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
re Proposed IRC Discussion Workgroup
- ;~) Tell me where it is, and I will be there. I'll be the one carrying the sledgehammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am also interested in participating, although I have no tools (only my words and thoughts) to bring along. Risker (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am also interested, though I have less tools to work with than Risker. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, sorry for persistence, but can you answer this question? Because this is a little ambiguous. --Irpen 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my decision to make...first we need to decide how the guideline will be established...a work group is one option but there are others. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- "We" means who? --Irpen 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee has said that it has been requested to take on extra duties and has opted to consult the community concerning the manner in which it is to do so. I presume that FloNight refers to her fellow arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, you have this annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouthes demonstrated avidly just one section above.
- No matter how much I am interested in your opinions on any and all matters, I asked Flo and please let her reply herself what she meant referring to "we". Thank you. --Irpen 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, but I notice that you had posed a couple of easily answered questions and appeared to be impatient for answers. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, any chance to hear the answer to the question? --Irpen 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- My thoughts only...I'm only one person...not we. :)
- Jimbo asked ArbCom to become more involved in sorting out the issues related to #admins. ArbCom does not have control of the channel since we do not own it, others do. Some members of the community that do not use the channel have stated that they want to have a have a chance to help draw up the guidelines for the channel. Of course, the people that use the channel also have an opinions. I guess all of these people are part of the "we". FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight. That'll teach me not to do things I'm not familiar with after midnight when I'm tired, but the concern about university networks seemed both reasonable and urgent. If Lara had noted that checkuser had confirmed sockpuppetry on the user notification I'd probably have taken this no further, but there does seem to be a need for clarification of the alleged wrongdoing. Thanks, . .. dave souza, talk 09:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice on my user page, there has indeed been great care taken over this issue and the result looks incontrovertible. It's just unfortunate that it was so difficult to get information on the blocks, and as more points were raised my confidence in cu was shaken – glad to be reassured. For what it's worth I've suggested some procedural improvements at AN/I, these may already be normal practice. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)