Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scuro (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 22 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

While you're on your break, thank you for your work for Misplaced Pages. I hope things work out well for you. --TS 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody 05:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee

This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A selfish plea

Welcome back — I'm sorry that I'm dropping in so soon after your break, but time presses. I noticed that you had resumed editing, and I'm here to encourage you to un-withdraw from the WMC/Abd arbitration case, seeing as the proposed decision staged has dragged on right through your time away. While I'm normally strongly opposed to last-minute changes to arbitration case panels (and have noted so explicitly at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision), I feel that this is a special circumstance. For one thing, you were involved in the case throughout its duration, up to the point of proposing and voting on several of the case findings — you wouldn't be coming at the matter 'cold'. For another, Vassyana's sudden (to those of us on enwiki, at least) appearance so soon before close may seriously alter the remedies adopted; I feel that your resumed participation would balance somewhat the irregularity of his actions.

I realize that I've dropped a lot of stuff on the Committee in a short time, and I'll be leaving sometime tomorrow for a long weekend, so I won't even be here to suffer through the mess I'm likely to cause. I apologize for explicitly making an attempt to drag you back in, but I hope that your participation will encourage the Committee to follow through with my request to resolve the choice of conflicting remedies in a transparent manner. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but currently real life stuff is still making it difficult for me to direct my attention on ArbCom matters with the level detail needed for me to return to being active on cases. But I'll remind the Committee to review your comments before they close the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

re; your edit on Fisting

The rfc you commented on was added by User:Dak as an ip while avoiding a block. I've removed the rfc and your comment. If you wish you are welcome to replace. Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed and blocked his next account. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Belated thank you

Dear FloNight,

It was a pleasure to meet, eat and converse with you and your husband at the Nashville meetup. This was my first Wiki-meetup, and I wasn't sure how it was going to turn out, but I had a great time! I'm sure the other restaurant patrons must have thought we were crazy, having these big noisy bull-sessions about all things enWiki, but it was great to really connect with the human beings behind the user-names on a project we all feel passionate about; its easy to forget sometimes that there's a real human being behind these electrons. I hope I'll be fortunate enough to run into you at another meetup sometime! :-) Until then, I remain yours truly, User:Bullzeye 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to meet you, as well. :-) We had a nice time visiting with everyone. The long weekend made it perfect for a 2 day meetup. People came from at least a half a dozen states. I hope that we can plan more meetups over long holiday weekends so that we get a good regional turnout like we did for this one. If so, then maybe we will cross paths again. Until then, Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 10:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Jorgenson Quintet

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Jorgenson Quintet, 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.

Note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Your flagrant disregard for our most basic values and core policies is disheartening. Encouraging packs of editors to harass, stalk and intimidate those they disagree with is very damaging to Misplaced Pages. You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior. I hold you personally responsible for your role in condoning these grotesque and abusive actions. I hold out hope that in the future you will do a better job standing up for Misplaced Pages’s integrity and editors that are targeted for abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it must be the phase of the moon. We have both managed to annoy people who have misinterpreted our motives and aims today. Have you seen WP:ANI#Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin?

CoM, I am certain that whatever your concerns or complaints, Flo is not intentionally doing anything to harm anyone or anything on Misplaced Pages. I have not been following the case closely enough to make any specific comments, but please be aware that no matter how it appears to you, she is first and foremost doing her utmost to be fair and impartial. I know you are having a difficult time, but do not blame Flo for these difficulties or the actions of others. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to drop me a note or email me. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'll try to keep in mind FloNight means well as she assumes bad faith and passes judgment on me based on smears and lies about my editing history and motives. It is somewhat comforting and encouraging that she isn't intentionally assisting a long term campaign of stalking, bullying, harassment and censorship. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Evidence presented by Shell Kinney

I am moving my reply here since Shelly may not appreciate us turning her page into an OT discussion. My replies:

• "was violating policy by coordinating ways to get your groups pov edits in an article" - discussing how to create content is not against policy...? And I believe the emails, if real, should show that we were paying respect to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and such, and not pushing some undue pov...? I hope our dedication to creating encyclopedic, neutral content will be taken under consideration.
• "there were many instances of coordinating who could revert in order to not have one user violated 1RR and get blocked or banned" - avoiding getting banned is nothing wrong, I'd think - of course, as long as it doesn't include variously defined "gaming the system"? I did and do support reduction of reverting (which of course reduces the chances of editors getting banned for obvious reasons - I don't think that giving advice to revert less is gaming the system?). I also strongly believe that blind reverts are bad, and proper reverts imply an editor understands the issue in question (which usually involves reading the article and joining the discussion). I also believe that under the above assumptions it is ok to discuss content with editors who trust, based on past experience, not to be blind reverters. At the very least I can say that this is what I expected from others, and this is what I always did before reverting myself. As promised, I can discuss details of what was said (and whether it was said) in individual emails in a more private venue.
• "The discussions about ways to get around article editing restrictions far out number the internal discussion about why someone's on site edits were problematic." - I find this surprising (although I was not following and/or participating in every single discussion we had). I'd like to point out that discussing, let's say, security of certain piece a software doesn't make one a cracker. In fact, I am pretty sure I used some of our discussion to make public recommendations on how to improve the functioning of this project (User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom).
• "In particular, any discussion about ways to manipulate the admins that work AE is going to get close scrutiny." Good, admins shouldn't let themselves be manipulated :) I don't believe we ever attempted to manipulate / mislead / lie to anybody on the project, but only discussed how to properly air our grievances in the increasingly more complex and bureaucratic (and not always functioning perfectly) wiki dispute resolution environment. Again, I'd be happy to discuss content of specific emails (and/or diff-based incidents) in a more private venue.

Thank you for your interest and comments so far, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your comments into consideration. The full Committee will be in contact with you later about any specific evidence that may go into a Finding of fact for the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When someone send a message saying "User Smith is edit warring at Foo. I've reverted twice and don't want to go over 2 reverts per day" is that commendable "reductions in reverting" or is it a call to arms? If two other mailing list members revert once each and then Smith is blocked for 3RR, is that only Smith's fault or is it improper coordination? I suspect it may be necessary to post actual examples (without identifying meta-info, of course) and allow uninvolved established editors to comment on the workshop. Thatcher 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, although comments from the parties may fall along the partisan lines; I am not sure how to avoid that. Looking at your example, it is an interesting case. What was the intention of the poster? Obviously, s/he didn't want to revert more him/herself, which is, ceteris paribus, commendable. Did that person expect others to join in reverting? Did they? Did that person expect others to read the article/discussion/sources before reverting? Is there any indication they did? Was it a call-to-arms or an invitation to discussion - both of which can be phrased the same but have different effects depending on members of the forum it is addressed to. Which parties joined the talk discussion and tried to reach some sort of compromise, who if anybody displayed WP:OWN? And let's not forget to look at User:Smith - was s/he edit warring? Were his/her edits potentially constructive (or vandal-like, ex. removing referenced text)? I am always happy to discuss my wiki edits, so I'll be looking forward to inquires about them from the committee. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton |  20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 10:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg

File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Judge-walton-pic.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. (And I deleted the WP file and verified the bot move on Commons.) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resignations

Please suggest alternative wording for this section on talk, rather than continuing to remove it. We can't have a code of conduct without discussing the circumstances in which members are expected to resign, and the implications of that. SlimVirgin 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page in the section talking about resignation as I made my change. Sorry if you missed it. The page is full of comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Flo, I'm sorry to ask this, but I feel I have to because you're on the Audit Committee that's looking into the oversight situation, and because your name is mentioned in a few places in connection with Lara's Bathrobe cabal and the Nashville meet-up. Did you know, before it emerged a couple of days ago, that Law was The undertow? SlimVirgin 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Did you think that it slipped my mind to inform the Committee during the time that we were discussing the matter? Or that I forgot to recuse on a case directly related to the situation? FloNight♥♥♥ 01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the response. I don't know who informed the Committee of what. I asked because it seems to me that this is a time to be straightforward, and it's better to ask than to sit around wondering. I hope you can respect that. SlimVirgin 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be rather deceptive for me to withhold the information so the question seems to imply rather strongly that I was acting improperly. There isn't any other way to interpret your question, right? FloNight♥♥♥ 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ID

Hi Flo. I remember seeing a conservation about verifying a person's ID, and think I remember you posting in the thread. I don't recall which page; to be honest, I'm lucky I can find my way back to my own page at the moment. Anyway, I did have my real life identity verified through the Citizendium process a while back. link I know this is not required yet, but I don't mind being early getting mine in just so I don't have to worry about it in the future. Also, I had sent other personal information (phone, location, etc.) to 2 admins. here with regards to WP:RIP back when we developed those guidelines. User:Huntster, and User:Royalbroil. During my RfA I also volunteered some of the same personal info to User:Jennavecia. I can also type up an email and forward to you as well with the same info if that would be of assistance. To be honest, I have no problem divulging the info to any established administrator, arb, crat, or steward in good standing. If a photo of my drivers license would be of benefit - I have no problem sending that along as well. I realize that these things are far and away from being requested at this point in time, and I also realize that much of the community would be against it. I personally have no opinion either way - but am willing to do so only in regards to myself. You are fully free to request any additional info, and forward any information to any area of the WMF which would be relevant. Thanks for you time. Ched. — Ched :  ?  05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. It is interesting that people have such varying opinions about identifying themselves. I'm signed my name to emails on public lists and private correspondence since 2005 when I started editing. For me it is an issue of accountability. My name is pretty unique so I'm easy to find and verify based on my comments on site. So, I would've had no problem with identifying from the start. But requiring identification for all editors would drastically change the nature of the project. The question is whether it would be for the good or would it stifle wiki editing to the point that it withers. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I think if all editors were required to submit verified ID that was posted publicly, we would have fewer editors but they would be a lot nicer to each other. This would also curtail sockpuppeting, admins with second accounts, and all the other current evils of the world, but not prevent them entirely. Thatcher 13:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I realize that "editor" will likely never be requested to do this, but "admin" has come under a lot of fire as of late. I personally have no problems standing up to my efforts here (or anywhere else on the web) and saying: "This is who I am, and this is what I said". Although I'll admit to making a boo-boo once or twice. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here - I guess we want to be careful not to further widen the gulf between admin. and editor - I think we want to narrow that gap. ... just thinking out-loud. — Ched :  ?  17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org.

Hello FloNight, I hope that you are well this morning. On October 2 I sent an email to arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org and I was wondering, if it wouldn't be much trouble, if you could verify receipt of the message and that everything is on the up and up (so to speak)? Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I found it. Will look into it to make sure all is well. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Quibble

- actually, as only admins (and up) can grant rollback, and she did so, granting L rollback less than a month after account creation, tools were abused. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding: I don't think this matters much in the overall picture, but as she knew at the time he was an ArbCom-ban-evading-sock, that is technically abusing the tools. As I stated in the header, merely a quibble. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew that when I wrote my comment. I think giving rollback to him is part of the same issue rather than a general misunderstanding about who should get the special tool. I was attempting to make the distinction between the stuff related to this incident and a pattern of misusing delete, protection, or blocking, or a general misunderstanding of policy. I'll tweak the wording to make it more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And now it seems that was possibly an error; see here which would seem to be in conflict with Jennavecia's statement to Arbcom, that "he went on as Law and I supported him in that." Either she phrased her statement very poorly, or she is now revising her history. As I said its a minor point which I thought was a mere technical quibble, but now it seems there is concern regarding this on the Motions talk page. I confess I do not at this point know what to believe about this, or whether it makes any difference. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your vote is missing on motion 3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• I know :-) But thanks for reminding me. FloNight♥♥♥ 08:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Retribution, punishment, and punitive action

Please familiarize yourself with this essay: Misplaced Pages:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Awaiting statements"

From whom, if I may ask? @harej 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that is interested in commenting about the motion. FloNightξξξ 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Where have all the hearts gone?

Your signature looks broken hearted. Paul August ☎ 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They're back! Until I find something that I like better. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah and I see you've added an extra just for me. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep the hearts Flo! They so right for you! — JoJo • Talk • 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo and hearts go together! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Choctaw Indian Academy

Hey, Flo. Just ran across this page you started on the Choctaw Indian Academy. It caught my attention because of the work I did on the Richard Mentor Johnson article a while back. Are you planning to finish this article and move it to the mainspace? I think it could be a decent article if someone has some time to put some work into it. If you move it to the mainspace, please add a link in the relevant part of the RMJ article. Thanks. Acdixon 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to work on it more. I have a half dozen tabs open in a browser window with good sources, and I'm sure that there are more. One of my first ever edits to Misplaced Pages (in 2005) was to Richard Mentor Johnson's article. He is a very interesting dude. :-) I'll add links and I'll let you know when I move it to mainspace. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

request

Would you please see User talk:Vassyana's talk page to see what I wrote. This is a big problem. One user claims that enemies are all socks. Including an editor that the user wikistalked then blocked as a sock. That editor was not editing POV nor are were there any claims that he was editing the same articles as other accused socks. In fact, socks was merely an excuse. It's as if I accused you of being a sock even though we don't edit the same articles and are not POV pushers for anything.

Spevw (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are ignoring my request. This is too bad because you are a member of ArbCom, whose goal is to resolve these situations. Spevw (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance"

No offense intended, but could you clarify for me what you mean by this? As I said in my statement, as far as I'm concerned I believe the conflict already has ended—I'm not interested in pursuing anything (and I never was interested in pursuing Epeefleche personally, all my contributions in that area were about The Shells article—now that its AfD is over, I have nothing more to say, and won't have anything more to say unless it comes up at DRV). The only reason the conflict is still going on is because Epeefleche et al. want some closure, not because it needs ArbCom's assistance. But I suppose you're free to have your opinion on it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I disagree, of course, but the extra explanation is much appreciated. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 15:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I look at ongoing events that could change my vote, so if something happens to change my view, I'll update my vote and comment. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Double vote

You voted doubly here--accidentally, I guess. Ucucha 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

oops. I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Those EEML timestamps...

You cited "" in your vote about Digwuren. Are you sure that's really the one you meant? Because it doesn't look that sinister to me. It's one of those where they are just trying to solve some internal conflict between their members. I don't think that should be held against them. Am I missing something, or is it just a mixup of timestamps? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the comment to be highly problematic since it encouraged edit warring and using tag team editing to get around 3rr. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I first wondered whether we were talking about the same mail, but now I found the bit you are referring to. You are quite right about that part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 18:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alert

You misspelled User:Radeksz's name under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Radek. Triplestop x3 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

Can you explain how your vote here concerns the proposed remedy? Further, can you explain how asking, off-wiki and privately, ArbCom functionaries about the correct interpretation of the recusal policy, is a problem? Are you saying that a party has no right to rise concerns over a possible CoI and the need for an arbitrator to recuse himself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that for you to see conflict of interest in this situation was so far outside of any actual COI that it was not a sensible interpretation of the policy and had the appearance of trying to find a way to get a better standing in the case. And given your past wikilawyering and manipulation of circumstances (evident from reading emails), I don't want to let you anywhere near a discussion about an article on this topic where you an a strong personal interest. I'm very sorry to say this because I know that it is not what you want to hear. But after being on the Committee for three years, and seeing your involvement in cases, AE enforcement, and reading the emails; I see the need to take a firm position about the topic ban. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the COI issue, I thought I am entitle to ask the arbcom functionaries, privately (to avoid causing a public dramu) about whether a recusal/COI policy here is relevant or not. Are you saying I shouldn't have had asked the question in the first place? And are you saying that asking the question justifies the topic ban?

Regarding "I don't want to let you anywhere near a discussion about an article on this topic where you an a strong personal interest". First, let me ask you: would you dispute my claim that 99% of EE-related content I make is constructive and uncontroversial? As my evidence to back up this claim, in addition to pointing out to my 20+ FAs, GAs and ~300 DYKs (all of which are community reviewed for stability and neutrality), I would like to propose that we do a sampling on a list of articles (~2200) I've created. As such, I hope it is clear that any problems are limited to a very small number of articles. Hence, I'd like to ask you: instead of a wide topic ban, couldn't we address the concerns raised with a combination of remedies that were discussed and received wide support on Proposed Talk from involved community members? To be specific, I refer to: 1) a ban on voting on all EE issues (AfDs, RMs) 2) a 1RR restriction (or a 3RR restriction applicable to all mailing list members treated as a single individual) 3) a topic ban from selected articles on which I (or other group members) have shown to display repeated bad judgment? 4) A civility parole? 5) a ban from participating in AE / ANI discussions unless I am directly involved? Wouldn't such a more surgical set of remedies address all the community concerns raised, and yet at the same time allow me to continue the uncontroversial content creation (which is what I do 99% of the time)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

FloNight, sorry for trespassing you on this very page; but could you take a look and perhaps comment on this and this, particulary how particular situation is differ. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. oh, and that is Wiki cup?

Principles of care and justice

You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts

• the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.
• administrators were to watch for further instances.
• harassment/ false accusations continued.
• harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.
• harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
• In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.

• even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
• an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
• this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
• administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
• they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
• The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
• Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
• a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)