User talk:FloNight

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6

I am on indefinite break and will return after some real life issues are dealt with. Good stuff but time consuming.

---

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . 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 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD Rfa

Hi FloNight, you asked me to reconsider. I genuinely do believe that an editor should have about 12 months experience at the very least. Four months does not seem to be much experience to me. Sorry if you disagree, but that is my opinion at the moment. Gold♥ 02:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your pro censorship ruling

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

---

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

---

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Thank you for your comments in my RfC. I hope that getting the full story out in a single location will be of benefit should questions about what occurred ever come up again. I look forward to working with you in continuing to help improve the project now and in the future. Thanks again. CLA 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you got more insight into my concerns from my comment. At this point putting the incident in the past is probably best for all. Take care, FloNight 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing and able to put the incident in the past as you suggest. One aspect of it, though, that concerns me is SV's obviously false accusation that I commented on the dispute on Wikpedia Review (WR). I've never had an account on WR. SV alleged that I did this in order to help in torpedoing of my RfA. If I had done the same thing to someone else, I think I would have been "called on the carpet" to apologize. In her/his case, however, that hasn't been the case. No one has formally asked her to apologize for this obviously personal attack. Don't you think that some double standards are going on here? Admins have been desysopped for much less. Why didn't you, as an arbitrator, call for her to be desysopped for making such a bald lie without evidence in order to win an argument or sink an RfA? To be honest, this is what we expect arbitrators to do. I'll be direct here, why is SV still an admin? What's really going on here and why do different standards appear to apply to different editors? CLA 16:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, when has accusing someone of living in the same state as a banned editor been given a free pass on such an obvious poison pill? Have you ever considered making the same accusation? CLA 16:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement from Zero0000

Hello, Thank you for asking for my side of the story. I am going overseas and there's a good chance I won't be able to discuss this for about 10 days. I don't even have time left right now to read everything that has been said so far. I would much appreciate it if you could copy the following statement to the necessary place or places.

I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys" which consisted of rabid anti-islamic filth. No attempt at context, no attempt at identifying the content as refering to an extreme fringe, no mention of the background of the groups that bring us this "information", no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography. I reacted with the "delete" button in a fit of anger, just as I would if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews". When I cooled down, I remembered the ArbCom ruling; reading it again now I can see that I broke it. So I have to plead guilty.

Thanks! --Zero^talk 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I just hope that Zero did not really ment to compare me to a Nazi.

2. As it turns out what he describe as "rabid anti-islamic filth" is already has it's own enecylopdic content here: [1] - while this article is focused on the Quranic origin of the expression - the article I created focused on the expression itself and the use done today for dehumenizing jews (the sourced content clearly show that). If I would have known about the "Islam_and_antisemitism" article (I did not knew at the time) I whould have just expended that article and/or put a redirect.

3. These are tough subjects: Islam, antisemitism, islamphobia, ephitets used in multi-national conflicts, racism - but this is why we have rules, policies, code of behaviour and process on how to deal with them in Wikipedia.

4. The article was taged for speedy by one admin. I listened to his reasons, discussed it, expended the article and he took down the speedy tag. Zero overrode not only the process, ArbCom rulling but also that 1st admin decision.

5. The proper way was to suggest a merge (I would agree) or to put the article for an AFD (in which if I would have known about the bigger article I would vote: 'delete, merge and redirect')

Zeq 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: [2]. I would like to learn from this issue how to improve my style as a wikipedia editor. If you can help I would appriciate it. Zeq 07:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 9	9 June 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Highways notability guideline? California Deletion debates Portal debate Maryland Featured member Three new GAs From the editors Exit list debates
Archives  |  Newsroom   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. —VshBot (t • c) 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

Hiya, it's been ages since I spoke to you on here.... you OK?? I've been on intermittent wikibreaks due to real-life issues, as much as I want to edit, I can't always. FloNight, I agree with your comments on WP:ANI: this is a clear-cut case of where WP:DIGNITY should come into play. High school/college/university athletes, are, by and large, not notable (per CSD A7).

If it comes up on deletion review we'll just have to deal with it as it comes... --SunStar Net ^talk 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Process is such a distraction, it's been distracting me from mainspace editing for a bit... grrrr! And to think that Daniel Brandt was nominated for deletion for a 14th time. It's getting like the notorious Gay Nigger Association of America AfD debates. --SunStar Net ^talk 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alison Stokke

(Copied from Friday's talk page) A default to delete for lack of consensus makes just as much sense as default to keep. The difference being that once Wikipedia needed articles and that was the main focus. It made sense to hang on to as much content as was absolutely possible. Today as our volume of articles has grown our concern is about the quality of our content more than in the past. This is particularly true in regard to material about living persons as we have learned from experience that we have the power to be disruptive in peoples lives. That is the reason that the policies are evolving in that direction. FloNight 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But a "default to delete" system automatically gives more discretionary power to admins, which is inherently a bad thing. The proper role of admins is as functionaries, carrying out the will of the community as expressed through consensus and discussion, not as authority-figures with discretion to decide what's "right" for the encyclopedia. That's why discussion and process are important. It's a sad, but necessary, situation that we have to have different technical access levels, giving some users more power than others; to balance that, we need strict safeguards to ensure that the opinion of non-admins counts. Walton^Assistance! 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

Okay, I just filed a request for unprotection for this page, under the argument that there appears to have been no justification for such protection under WP:PROT, and was informed that it "appropriately protected" until a "review" under WP:OTRS was completed on a private mailing list.

So, as far as I can tell, someone emailed Wikipedia about this article, and wanted something changed, or was complaining, and that this was cause to fully protect the article until such time as their complaints were dealt with in a private review, by a number of unknown editors. However, I don't see any mention of this in any of the cited policy pages -- not on WP:OTRS, not on WP:PROT; no where. In fact, I've never even heard of this process before, let alone seen it as a justification for fully protecting an article -- what gives? I have no idea what's going on here, and none of the other people on the talk page seem to know what's going on either. --Haemo 04:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Links: RFPP. Daniel 04:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the merits of the arguments of either side, you have violated both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which says "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute". Stepnet 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Hi Flo. I don't know if I ever got around to thanking you for your welcome-to-WP post on my talk page. So, here it is; thank you. On this matter of Archimedes Plutonium DRV I must differ in my opinion of the situation. I think it's important because the AfD was closed by an admin with a clear majority, perhaps even a consensus, to keep. I left some comments on that DRV page [3] that I think are significant from an administrative perspective. Good regards, Kenosis 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1RR per week

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)