User talk:FloNight/Archive Dec 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Watchlisting categories

Watchlisting categories won't do anything for the Macedonia dispute, as you should know. I retain my comment on another case that you should refrain from making statements when you accept a case on behalf of the Committee as a whole. You obviously have your personal views, which should be repected, but these are really situations where ¿Por qué no te callas? would be a perfectly understandable response. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

You know it all really - simply "thanks". I appreciate the help that you have given me here & elsewhere. I only hope I will be able to help & support you if you need it. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 16 • November 17, 2007 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu pending case

I am generally opposed to the communication with Arbitrators outside of the ArbCom pages, but I am merely asking you to read what I posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Advise to ArbCom by Irpen since this message would loose part of its relevance once the case is accepted and the acceptance is pending. So, I am posting this message to all Arbitrators who indicated the interest to this case by casting their votes so far. You do not have to respond if you think that my concerns have no merit. Regards, --Irpen (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova ArbCom

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not see it until after the block. As I note here, I subscribe to 14 Wikimedia related email lists. While I'm subscribed to that particular list, like most other Foundation lists, I rarely read all the posts and even less frequently post to it. I did not see that particular email until after the block but curious like everyone else, I went back and looked for the email. I was on vacation in Nevada during that week and definitely did not see it. As noted elsewhere by others, the email does not seem to be about blocking but rather a case study/discussion about looking for socks. As I noted by my ArbCom vote, nothing in the email supports a block. I regret that I did not see the email and stop Durova's misguided action. I hope this answer helps reassure you that I do not support this type of collection of evidence and the block. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and I appreciate that you do not support this type of collection of evidence, which is the heart of the matter. Given that the list itself is the subject of at least 2 proposed finding of fact, I suggest that should those proposals be made a part of the final findings, you recuse yourself from voting on them (or any other matter pertaining directly to the list and its usage). Isarig (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Songgarden / Once and Forever

In re: Durova It is being suggested you come clean and show your "checkuser" evidence against Songarden / Once and Forever. The game is over for Durova. Please show your evidence. Thank you, 72.49.143.93 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On a related note... should we remove this, or let it stay? Picaroon (t) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


I would be very careful about addressing your checkuser status on the November 19, 2007 block of Songgarden, when you did not yet have said status.

  • Addendum to my evidence:

Please rest assured that Durova was not truthful about "Flonight" using checkuser information to block me, because according to this evidence, Flonight was not a checkuser until days after the block was made. This makes Durova's claim a very bald illustration of deceitful presentation to this community. Please see the attached link to evidence of Flonight becoming a checkuser days after the block of me. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&oldid=758421#Enwiki Truly yours, Songgarden Back in the U.S. Nov. 26, 2007 71.142.240.138 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Could you please tell me, and the community, why I am still blocked, following the recent events with Durova?

Did you actually have checkuser tools when she claims you "checked" on me? I would like to move on, in a dignified and correct manner. Please unblock me for good reason and good cause. Thank you. Songgarden back at Lake Como, Italy. 82.61.184.29 (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My first ArbCom case ;)

Hey Flo. Just a quick thank you for letting me Clerk Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. I've now closed it, and I'm pleased to say I thoroughly enjoyed it! I hope I done everything right: I've had a block made on Eyrian to implement the ban, and had him desysopped (see m:Requests for permissions#Eyrian@enwikipedia) to implement the other remedy.

If you ever need another Clerk, I'm your man!
Anthøny 22:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye

Your rash action (and that of five other ArbCom members) will lead to an exodus of more than just Giano, and a net detriment to the project. Thank you for one thing: completely demonstrating the utter rot that is the DR process on WP. It's more about personality conflicts than actually building the encyclopedia. For this, and many other reasons, I will be exiting the project at the conclusion of this shab ArbCom. Well played. Mr Which??? 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that FloNight is perhaps one of the more level headed arbitrators. I don't think that waiting this long, evaluating and weighing the facts and then changing a vote can fairly be called a 'rash action'. MrWhich, we agree on many things, but on your choice of words we disagree. Lsi john (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that waiting this long, seeing it at 5-5, and deciding to suddenly switch from oppose to support on such an incredibly wrong-headed motion is accurately described as "rash." I can think of many, far more colorful adjectives as well, but I choose not to use them at this point. Mr Which??? 01:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A minor matter of formatting.

This is'nt really important, but would you mind awfully formatting your vote in the 90 day ban of Giano vote in such a way that the enumeration of votes is not broken. As it is currently, your vote is not enumerated on the support or oppose side. I presume you currently mean to vote for the 90 day ban, but because of indentation, it is not currently enumerated, but merely indented. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

You don't display any on your user page, so maybe you don't believe in them. Anyway, you deserve this one, even should you choose to throw it away. [1]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For valuing the principle more than the end you want. AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied here. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're already aware of my feelings, but I'll publicly second the Barnstar for the reasons given above. Thank you. Lsi john 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I echo John's sentiments. I would also like to apologize completely and abjectly to you for my above post. It was rash, made in the heat of anger, and completely inappropriate. I am ashamed that my anger took such deep hold of me that I behaved in ways I usually do not. "Disagree without being disagreeable" I've heard it said, and you deserved that. I'm deeply sorry that I was not able to do that towards you when you initially switched your vote. Mr Which??? 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr Which, no problem. Happy Editing ;-) FloNight 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the Month

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Carbon.
You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse work 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you should know..

As an arbitrator involved in the Privatemusings case, I thought you should know about a recent event. An IP address has been autoblocked because it had been used by Privatemusings in the past. I have posted the info on the log sheet here. Happy editing. Icestorm815 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article Bosnian Mujahideen - pls help me to deal with a conflict

Hi, I'm having a problem with a The Dragon of Bosnia who has repeatedly deleted an article which I edit called Bosnian Mujahideen (see edit history here [2]). He has also deleted links to the article on other articles. [3][4][5][6]He seems to be basing his deletion of the article on two sets of arguments:

  1. that the term Bosnian Mujahideen does not exist. In fact the term is used by published (research and books) experts.[7]. I admit though that there are other terms often used, such as El Mujahid, El Mujaheed or just Mujahideen (spelled in various forms).
  2. claims the article is based on "false info/original research"[8] or "propaganda attempt or original research if you wish, based on unverified sources per WP:RS"[9]. As you will see from the references used in the article it is quite thoroughly sourced from what must be judged to be neutral and/or reliable sources.
  3. states that "there is already particular article"[10] This refers to an article called 7th Muslim Brigade, which The Dragon of Bosnia is an editor of. Not only do I find this article to be blatantly POV and lacking in verifiable sources it also does not cover the Bosnian Mujahideen.

In the interest of avoiding an edit war I would like some assistance from you as an adminstrator.Osli73 11:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. There were no Bosnian Mujahideen, just particular units such as El-Mujahid, so I redirected that made-up term to the article about the unit (redundancy). According to ICTY, Serb propaganda fabricated much of these stories so this is not a right place for that. For example there is the whole article about Serb propaganda in the Stakić verdict:The media

One example of such propaganda was the derogatory language used for referring to non-Serbs such as mujahedin, Ustasa or Green Berets, although at the time there were no foreign volunteers in Bosnia.

Read: Wikipedia:No original research:

  1. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
  2. Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
  3. Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [11] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research.

You shouldn't misuse Wikipedia by uploading unverified photos, too. The war is over, propaganda should be over too. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Reply to Dragon of Bosnia,

  1. the sources I cite (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the "Bosnian Mujahideen"
  2. yes, the Bosnian Mujahideen were often referred to as El Mujahid or El Mujaheed, as I state in the article.
  3. 'your' article on the 7th Muslim Brigade is, in my opinion, (a) considerably less NPOV, (b) less well sourced (and not verifiable sources either) and (3) deals more with the Mujahideen as they were used in Serb propaganda rather than discussing the actual unit.
  4. the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources (pls note the list of references). I have exclusively used American and British media and government sources as well as ICTY documents precisely to avoid the type of knee-jerk accusation of "Serb propaganda" which you claim.
  5. I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propagande during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist.

Given the above, I can't see what the basis of your opposition to this article is really based on. Osli73 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are already articles called 7th Muslim Brigade, and The role of foreign volunteers. This is just redundant WP:OR article, based on unrelaible sources per WP:RS. On the other hand my sources are International court findings. The sources should be relaible, such as verdicts, verified documents, not blog, websites or unverified pictures/photo montague. You also tried to delete the cause of foreign volunteers arrival, and the cause were mass war crimes committed by Serb forces. This is the ICTY conclusion. So when you talk about NPOV, I juct can't understand your earlier actions. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not have the time to thoroughly review the edits and give a well thought out response. This needs to be discussed somewhere else instead of my talk page. I suggest the talk page of the article(s), RFC, or mediation as needed. Thanks, FloNight (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your reply. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kherli

I don't know if you remember but You headed an arb com on User:Kehrli. To remind you you may want to look at User_talk:Kehrli. The ban imposed has now passed and I believe that s/he is back to start the same set of problems that required much effort on many people's part including you and I. I have reverted several subtle anon edits made [12] to push the same non-consensus view not founded in common scientific usage within the field being addressed pushed by Kherli. Although they are subtle and might seem like a simple content dispute I would hope that the previous precedent set by the findings of the arbcom you headed can be used to prevent any future disruption. I do not believe that it was the intention of the committee to prevent disruption for a year and then allow the disruption to resume unmitigated. The year ban was to give a cooling off period and an opportunity for Kherli to become a productive non-disruptive editor. The findings of the committee should be used to prevent disruption through warning Kherli that her/his unacceptable behavior in the past remains unacceptable despite the lifting of the ban and the preventative actions will be taken promptly if s/he chooses to resume such behavior. I bring this to your attention at the very first sign of trouble, before any serious problems have arisen so that it can be dealt with effectively while the problem is small.--Nick Y. 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As expected s/he has started an edit war without stating any reason for reverting in response to my reversions. Disruption galore is on the horizon. I will refrain from engaging in any edit war but this problem needs to be dealt with quickly while it is still manageable.--Nick Y. 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On more specific legalese grounds I request an immediate block based on the previous finding of the committee that "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." Obviously I also request a sock puppet investigation.--Nick Y. 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello :) I remember this case a little but I need to review it. I'll look and see what I think. FloNight 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As you review it you may remember that it was confusing. To summarize: The commonly used scientific notation within the field of mass spectrometry is 'm/z' which is also approved by IUPAC. The use of this notation is somewhat inconsistent with other guidelines etc. (e.g. m=mass q=charge). There was an effort to introduce a new unit Thomson (unit) 'Th' a while ago. The important principles of the finding is that the units and notation in common use in the field are what is important. The recent change that 'many' scientists use the unit 'Th' is simply false. 'some' is almost an overstatement. Really the number of times it has been used in peer reviewed writing is in the tens (compared to 10's-100's of thousands for m/z) and is less prevalent today than a few years ago (a declining trend). In any case I am only at least initially asking for enforcement of the previous ruling and that a warning be issued. Thanks.--Nick Y. 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked and saw that the anon ip has been warned on the talk page. Let's wait and see if that is enough, okay. I looked through the rest of the edits and saw that most were on this topic so there may be a problem brewing. If so, we can maybe block the ip address or take other measures as needed. Thanks for letting me know. Take care, FloNight (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's hope that does the trick. If it doesn't your additional voice of warning and/or intervention may be helpful. Thanks.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

With all respect to the arbcom, is it necessary to start oting before I've even really had ime to get evidence together? My last exam is Tuesday, even waiting a week from now would have let me finish assembling some of the evidence before you all started voting. Unless all of you plan to carefully revise votes, it does seem a little hasty.

I mean, I don't mind terribly, but there's some rather funny findings of fact getting voted on - not quite wrong, but just slightly off, e.g. talking about me being in a content dispute, when I hadn't edited that page for 9 months previous. I understand the point - I'm an evolutionary biologist with strong anti-creationist views, and thus may have a conflict of interest that might be damaged by blocking creationists myself. But, as worded, it's making a muddle of what actually happened.

I don't object to the general thrust of the voting. I messed up, and I accept that. But I do think the accuracy of wording is fairly poor at the moment, and this could lead to bad policy.Adam Cuerden talk 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I sent a post to the ArbCom mailing list with your request for a delay. FloNight (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR ArbCom

I don't see the request as a request for ArbCom to decide what the policy should be written as, but more of a request for ArbCom to evaluate the actions of some editors so that the impasse can be breached either way. As it is, the page/policy is basically an edit-war between Admins, with the protection in place. We normal and established users are being prevented from having any input, either by being ignored or by being locked out of the editing process, through primarily ownership issues. There's so much information available and presented that I think this subtle point is being overlooked in the far broader context. wbfergus Talk 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Forgive me, but I still have a problem with Finding of fact 9, and, to a much lesser extent, 4. I find 9 completely slanderous, even if not intended that way, because it implies that all those diffs are examples of me using admin tools to my advantage in a content dispute, which they are not. I've also posted rather more calm discussion about it than my rant of two days ago here. Can you please ask the arbcom to give me a bit of feedback dealing with my points? Because I really am feeling like noone's listening to anything I say, and, frankly, have kind of been feeling that way since the case started. Mackensen's the only one who asked me a question,a nd although you've forwarded things on, and posted on the arbcom board, I'm feeling like I'm floating in a void, with no real feedback until proposals suddenly appear, sometimes with no sign of prior discussion, like FoF 9, and then, in short order, votes all rush to appear before anyone else can comment on them. And it's really making me feel worthless, in a case about me, to have no sign that anyone in charge cares about a word I say, unless, perhaps, I aksk it to be mailed in, in which case it *may* suddenly appear on the page a week later. Adam Cuerden talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraternity membership lists

I am having a debate with a group of authors who maintain fraternity articles. Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu They are arguing that if a fraternity publishes a list of living people who they claim are members, we should accept this as a primary source and proceed to associate these living people with that fraternity. They have opened and RFC on the matter and your insight into the issue would be appreciated. Alan.ca (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)