User talk:FloNight

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6

Apologies‎

My apologies for not notifying you when raising the discussion at Wikipedia: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)

That's a funny looking "house cat"

;)

I like your dress, though. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal review

Well, you told me to remind you by the middle of this week if I hadn't got any word on my appeal review, so I'm reminding. Everyking (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Highways

Hello FloNight. We were wondering if the Committee will be continuing to review our case? There has been no activity since the case was moved to voting a few weeks ago. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Workgroup

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)

Every bit of that seems wrong to me. I thought Jimbo simply said that IRC is under the control of ArbCom, not asked them to maybe think about somehow thinking about maybe getting involved. Also, there are people who do not use it because they're ignorant (a reason for exclusion), people who don't use it because they do not agree with it in principle (a reason for inclusion, if a goal is to make it more acceptable to the community), and people who used to use it and left out of disgust (a reason to demand their presence, as they will be the ones who know what's wrong). The idea that only the present users should have input is backwards. The present users like it as it is, so of course they are going to dismiss everything else. If there is a great problem with it, seek those who know the problems, not the ones who say, "Everything is fine: ignore those whiners." This is assuming that ArbCom is interested in reason, logic, fairness, and getting this thing approved. That may not be the case. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we start with what FloNight actually said? I guess all of these people are part of the "we" is, I think, intended to be inclusive. I think you've misread it if you think it's intended to exclude any interested or disinterested party. --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, again, it's great to know what "you think" from your posts on each and every page the contentious issues are raised. Now, in response to Flo and, especially, Utgard's post. Utgard's opinion that "we" should include the IRC critics has been voiced many times before and rebuffed as many times because the IRCers themselves like to discuss things among themselves. Have any of the IRC critics ever been given access to the channel? The explanation we always receive why the channel needs to be supersikret is that the discussions include BLP issues. So, the logic goes that all IRC critics are indecent people who would publicized the BLP info they find on IRC. I remember how Badlydrawnjeff was asking for access. There can never be a doubt that he is a very decent person. But to this day, the only non-admins on the channel are its supporters or those stripped of adminship by arbcom. The loyalty to IRC is a good indicator of BLP understanding, I gather. --Irpen 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm interested in hearing your perspective on the topic. I'm interested in hearing form all interested members of the Community. If that did not come through in my previous post, I apologize. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why not let the "IRC Discussion Workgroup" function out in the open so that "all interested members of the Community", whose opinion you are "interested in hearing", can watch and, perhaps, contribute? Are you also interested in Utgard's opinion expressed above? Anyway, he provided it and pointed out to some, what seems to him, inconsistencies in your post. If his opinion is something you are also "interested to hear", why not straighten out those inconsistencies in your post and respond to Loki? Instead of your response, there was one more post from Tony who is great at explaining what everyone else said. --Irpen 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had also hoped and expected the consultation would be held in the open. Has anybody suggested that it should not? --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Discussion Workgroup redux

Hi FloNight, I note that the community has not heard much more about the IRC Discussion Workgroup that you proposed. If the individuals selected for that workgroup are not yet finalized, I'd like to suggest another editor and former admin, who may be able to provide insights from a different perspective.[1] I look forward to hearing more about the workgroup in the near future. Best, Risker (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A working group was my idea but evidently did not draw support from other Arbitration Committee members. Yesterday, I received an email reporting that user conduct guidelines for #wikipedia-en-admins were updated. I did not participate in the decision and have not read the guidelines yet. I'm catching up on reading my email today. I'll update you with further thoughts soon-ish. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise? Giano (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And did past real or paper attempts to clean up the channel taken under the same cover of secrecy ever bring anything? Remember the over a year ago post by Fred to ANI that "arbcom finds unacceptable" bla-bla-bla thus appointing channel guards? And what? One of the "guards" was no one else but David Gerard!

Not surprisingly the attempt of correction taken within the same secrecy framework did not change much and the rampant IRC abuse went on for another year with the discussions occasionally arising onwiki. This culminated in the latest IRC case and so much bru-ha-ha and just when the case was closing and some were trying to claim that IRC learned the lesson this kicked right in. I have not heard either from Moreschi or from Dmcdevit, neither an explanation nor an apology after my request. Neither I've heard of their being sanctioned. And who would sanction them? Dmc is a chanellop himself! The only reaction to my request was that my post itself was immediately discussed (within minutes after I posted it and, yes, at the very same channel). Interestingly, the main subject of that discussion whose participants know who they are was the "leak" rather than the abuse itslef.

And, btw, another channelop (Mackenesen) whose duty is supposedly to investigate the incident upon learning about it was at the channel during the discussion. So, he learned of the incident and did nothing but more talk. Again, no investigation, no sanctions and no attempt to contact me. So, it is same usual. Abuse continues, some members of establishment take part in it and others in the establishment mildly disapprove and say "A" but never saying "B". And now with this new "update" things would change for better all of a sudden. Sigh.

"Was anyone supposed to have believed otherwise?" indeed, Giano. --Irpen 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sad that flo's attempt at open discourse has been ignored and that the irc mess not be handled appropriately. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since reading Irpen's post here, I contacted FT2 about the new guidelines and Dmcdevit about Moreschi's conduct in channel. I suggest that you contact both of them with your concerns. Both are interested in cleaning up the channel and working toward that effort. I'll continue to push for more oversight of the chan ops and a review of channel discussion to make sure that the channel is being used to enhance administrators on site work. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh please don't trouble yourselves, no one beleived a word of it anyway - did you? Giano (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• my expectations were met, but not exceeded. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, Moreschi and secretly reached solution through "good ombudsmanship"

Flo, you seem to not understand what took place in the incident in question if you suggest contacting no one else but Dmc in order to address it. Dmc was complicit in the affair and now you suggest that he is the proper person to decide upon the actions?

And the next day Mackensen knew about it too. As soon as I asked Moreschi to explain oneself the very next minute (literally) Ryan posted the diff to #admins which started a discussion. You think the discussion was about the abhorrent behavior of Moreschi and Dmc? Not very much. Mostly it was about the "leaks". ("<Ryanpostlethwait> honestly guys, who keeps passing logs out of this channel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Your_conduct_at_.23admins")

And Mackensen was online during that discussion. Did it help? We had already two level-30 channelops aware of the situation and one of the two actually made it happen. Within 3 days or so, more channelops became aware and still nothing. When Mackenses found out, he just asked around a little but was not too persistent and did not attempt to contact me or anyone else. If he chose to not act on it or inform me, I have to say that the system remains broken.

I found this out by pure accident. I have no certainty that it does not go on. And Mackensen and other ops being made aware of the incident had a duty to act without my further urging anyone. There has been enough time by now.

This whole thing of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such things as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, Mackensen had to act vigilantly upon it after finding something out even purely by accident through being at the channel when Ryan posted the diff. Otherwise, it is all meanigless.

Same with checkuser: If checkuser logs are only available to checkusers themselves, it is impossible for regular editors to know whether they have been the victims of an illicit enquiry, and therefore there is no public liason function for the ombudsman to perform.

Whoever is entasked with enforcing the rules over something where the logs are closed, has to do so pro-actively. Otherwise, it is a meaningless function since the logs are considered private

And last but not least, I am by far more concerned by the conversation itself being held behind my back by the sneaky folk than by the word "bastard" which does not worry me on its own, as I have seen worse and I know too well about the manners, faith and intellectual honesty in those quarters. I also know what they think of myself and it does not bother me too much.

And now the claim that everything is "fixed" is being made again. And how is it fixed? It is fixed by modifying the guidelines "through a discussion". And what discussion? The discussion at... #admins. Ironic, isn't it? --Irpen 19:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked FT2 to follow up with you about your concerns. He has access to the logs and played a large role in establishing the new guidelines for the channel. I'll follow up with both of you to see if your concerns are addressed. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Flo but there is much more to it.

First, suppose that I did not know about this incident and did not ask anything from anyone. Would anything have happened at all? See above about the impossibility of real oversight if its function is given to the regulars of the channel with the sikret logs.

Next, by accident the channelop already knew that something happened from my post at the Moreschi's talk. Still nothing for the whole month.

Next, how are we supposed to believe that something changes this time as the "change" was discussed only by the channel's regulars? Mackensen, on the channel the next day, asked whether anyone can provide him a log. No one was willing to. Did he ask me? No.

And if, I am speaking hypothetically now, you and FT2 take this particular incident close to heart, pursue it to the end and expunge Moreschi from #admins and Dmcdevit from both #admins and Arbcom-L, where he should not be in the first place, how do we know that next time this would be addressed by the existing system? Why can't this plague be dealt in an honest and transparent way and by the community who this concerns directly. How many more times the IRCers would be telling us that everything is finally "all right". How many more editors like Giano, Bishonen and Ghirla are to be expunged? --Irpen 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I should not be regarded as an active chanop; I have little enough time to devote to this project as it is without having to referee these disputes. It's a task even more worthless and thankless than sitting on Arbcom. As an aside, Giano appears feisty and vigilant enough for an "expunged" editor. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, you were an active channelop at the time as when the incident was discussed at #admins you said so yourself offering "a cookie to whomever sends a full unredacted log covering the incident in question" and adding "to be clear, I'm asking as an op". You post above does not add up to this. --Irpen 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was, and I did in fact get a log, which confirms that Moreschi came in channel, said stupid things despite attempts by others to restrain him, then left again. I don't find giving civility warnings useful, so I lent my support to reforming channel access and overall standings. This, however, came at the same time I grew busy in real life, and I found I had little energy for the task, which I've left to others. Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately your summary of the incident is a pity one. I have also seen the log and saying that Dmc's role was "restraining" one is a big stretch. He was no less (IMO more) insulting even if he did not use such rude words.

But never mind, Mackensen, there was no hope on my end that the secret procedures can be successful in tackling the secret wrongdoing. And I did not hope that you would do anything either from seeing you in the past.

This is just an additional demonstration that the system based on the assumption of good ombudsmanship of chanops themselves does not work and cannot work. And past years demonstrated that any attempts of reform failed to bring a meaningful change when the reforms were undertaken within the same secrecy framework where the wrongdoing lies. Reform proposed and discussed secretly behind the closed doors by selected few who has been on the channel all this time does not and won't look credible. --Irpen 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and the repeated statements by yourself (and others) that you had no faith in the process or those involved was indeed a great help in trying to grapple with the situation. I wish you luck in dealing with it. Mackensen (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did not have much expectation that you would handle the incident properly. You said above what actions you took and what conclusions you made. And wasn't I right?

As for my "faith" in general, please do not put words in my mouth. I have no faith that the problem of secretive wrongdoing can be tackled by secretive means. This is the only thing that I've said. Nothing about "faith in the process" in general. I have a great faith that the problem can be addressed if "grappled" in an open and transparent way. Note that this latest claim is made that the "consensus" that will "fix" #admins has been achieved through a "discussion" at ...#admins.

Note how many past attempts to deal with the complicity through open means have bean thwarted and guess why we are still there. As usually, of course, someone is now saying (again) that this time the situation is finally under control. Remember the Fred's announcement -teen months ago? Remember Arbcom's pronouncement one month ago? Right! Exactly when Moreschi and Dmc had that beautiful discussion. --Irpen 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick clarifier on the above. Following the above being passed to me, I looked back in the channel logs. This is what I found.

One user, Moreschi, was angry, and exasperated at the choice he did not agree with, of who was appointed to the working group. In that context he stated in the channel a month ago on February 7, his upset at the appointments, expressed his concerns, and gave his apprehensions about the impact of appointing a specific user in an uncivil (short outburst) manner. Dmcdevit and a couple of others countered this without drama, the matter was over in a few lines as best that log shows. More importantly, not one other person on the channel endorsed or supported that negative statement -- the channel in general on inspection, functioned exactly as was best. It did not analyze (and thereby perpetuate or fuel) the drama, it did not support it. It decided it was unworthy of discussion. It let one or two users do the talking why it was wrong, and the rest either ignored it as a brief outburst quickly dropped, or commented that drama wasn't wanted and to let it go. Moreschi himself dropped it there minutes later, and is not in the habit of making such outbursts there. It was not raised again that way, nor has Moreschi commented on it in any way or spoken uncivilly there on any other matter since. Given that 100% is not attainable in any medium, it is fair to say that this was in fact handled well, that every single channel users with one exception acted appropriately in the channel when it happened, and that one user got the hint and quickly dropped it.

You may have concerns in future on a matter to do with that channel (which is not outside the bounds of possibility). I accept that there are differences whether it should exist or not, be public or not, is appropriately representative or not. But in terms of actual conduct there, a fair number of independent users can usually review what went on and see if the action was seriously out of line.

I will add - although not asked - I have also checked out other statements at other times of recent incidents, and in most of them, the representation on-wiki does not conform to the actual channel dialog as it took place. I accept that this information is not public and therefore perhaps frustratingly, cannot be verified in the way that on-wiki discussion can. Then again, off-wiki chat such as email, irc, and other forums, has never been scrutinizable that way, and technically, often cannot be. The wiki-norm is more that all adverse matters and problematic behaviors, are to be "left at the door", and repeating breachers of norms may be warned or sanctioned. Whether that's right or not is a matter of user philosophy. I have stated my reasons why it works in the recent RFC, and note that people will talk - it's better to have a place where 50 or so admins observe and keep a good standard (which it has had in general at least equal to the wiki for quite some time) and scrutiny, than fragmented "behind the scenes" chat between smaller cliques. At present, any admin at all of any viewpoint can join that channel, which since the action taken in 2006, has consistently proven quite successful as a technique. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC Admins

Following assurances made by yourself at the close of the famed IRC case, could you now please confirm to me, how many non-admins and ex-admins still have access to the Admins channel. Please reply as soon as possible. To the nearest ten will do. Also could you explain precisely what changes have been implemented following the case and your declared intention to change the way the channel operated. Thanks. Giano (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to relay your question to FT2 in case he does not see it here. As noted above on my talk page, FT2 is best person to contact for information about the #admins channel since he is/was actively involved with modifying the channel guidelines and access to the channel. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is so difficult about the question? You go there, you are an Arb, don't the Arbs discuss these things? Please don't be evasive. You were one of those so keen to accept the IRC case, now please be equally keen on some of the reslolutions. Giano (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FloNight doesn't go there "as an arb" (which implies "in a formal role as an arbcom member", eg to take a formal arb role in the channel, as opposed to "an admin, who also happens to be an arbitrator, visiting the channel"). Nor do I, nor do any of the arbcom users who are active on IRC. On an occasion if/when we might, we'd probably say so, but that hasn't happened yet that I know of. Flo is there as an admin with higher level channel access, which she may or may not use on any given occasion, and the same is true for other users by and large. The complete list of users correct as of a week or so ago is here, along with instructions for generating a list that is accurate up to today. Most of those on it can be tied back to their Wiki accounts, allowing you or anyone with an interest to do the work of adding up admins or non-admins, who is interested by the question. There is no guarantee FloNight is, and whilst she has a say in handling of conduct issues there (like all users) she is not in any sense a "manager" nor responsible for the user list management. As for changes, please see the rough summary here which may help as a basic starting point (but is more a note than a formal resolution of any kind).

Best, FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget the "best," Please just answer my question, as Flo seems to have lost the power of speech. How many non-admins remain, and what changes have happened? Giano (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me simpify this for you Flo - beyond Tony Sidaway (or "waiting for a girlfriend" or whatever he is currently calling himself) have any other non admins been removed? Have, indeed, any changes at all been implemented? How difficult a question is this for you? Giano (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) See above, it's answered. FloNight doesn't know a specific count, nor do I. Old decisions on channel access have more or less been "grandfathered" in; the issue of non-admin access is shelved by common agreement by and large, at the moment. The user list is available, and linked above, and you have access to it as does anybody who wishes, to check the issues that you feel matter.

Changes have also been described too (also linked above). Please see the above links. Whilst there is a learning curve on it, the intentions and critieria are good ones and what Ive seen, have broad support and the possibility to help in the few cases where a problem might not have been handled as well before. Of course nothing's perfect, so it goes without saying there will be issues, but broadly I've reviewed a number of the last 9 months' incidents and found quite often the reported incidents were frequently misreported in respect of accuracy, completeness, or neutral description.

As examples of changes that you might consider important: this is the first time it has been explicitly stated that IRC is there specifically to support the wiki (anti-divergence measure, learning from Ezperanaza)... that some decisions cannot just be made on whim but must have multiple review... the handling of certain on-channel incidents to reduce over-reaction... the ruling out of certain other actions to reduce abuse... clear delineation on core standards expected... who and how to appeal chanel op abuse or have a problem reviewed if there is a concern... etc. These are all newly agreed, and have strong support. What will be best is to find that they help in the exceptional cases they were designed for, for the rest of the year.

Finally, note this is an internal channel guide. It is an agreement between irc users of mutual expectations on the channel. As such it is not an on-wiki matter, nor a matter for users who don't use IRC. As the saying goes, what happens off wiki is not consensus for what happens on-wiki. That en-admins has an internal agreement does not per se affect, supersede, or change on-wiki matters. Actions by admins and non-admins on-wiki are still down to individual admins decisions and accountability. What has been done is to clarify and in a way, codify, that there is a clear understanding in the channel too, of major areas of usage and approach, and what some of those are. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Giano, the user list of the channel has been made non-private and may be accessed from any IRC client. A reasonably up to date list is here. Thatcher 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FGS! has Flo. or any of the Arbs, implemented or overseen any of the changes advocated as a sop to the community at the end of the IRC case - yes or no? Giano (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano, we've set up channel guidlines that all people who use the channel must now abide by. If you want to look, please do so here. The IRC case highlighted a few problems with the channel, one of the more serious concerns was plotting going on in there. I can tell you that the channel ops are working proactively to stop anything that could even be slightly seen as talking behind other users backs. I for one have talked to a number of users when there has been a mild concern and it has done the trick so far. The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Flo has clearly lost all mental and muscular capacity for communication will one of you please answer - how many ex or non-admins remain in the channel? Giano (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That above is just so outrageous that I cannot reply in few words. But for now a quick remark on the last sentence:

"The users of the channel are now aware that if they say anything they shouldn't, they'll be quickly asked to leave."

Not true. Do we need to go to a specific detail? We can if this is denied. And this non-truth makes debunking the rest simply redundant. --Irpen 23:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was aware that we made it perfectly clear what was acceptable and what wasn't in the channel and if users don't abide by that then of course we'll remove them. With regards to your non admin question, I think that there are currently two users who have access to the channel that are former admins who were desysopped. There are a couple of others that hold other positions of trust with the foundation such as board members. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How many and who? Giano (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This may not be the complete list, but going off this list, there's Betacommand and Mercury that are former admins who can't just ask for their bit back and with regards to other non admins, there's; Werdna (developer), Guillom (steward and OTRS contact), Alphax (commons sysop), Datrio (steward), pfctdayelise (commons sysop), someWiktAdmin (wikt admin), Vishal (ex WMF employee) and wiki_blue (ex WMF employee). I think that's it, but I can't be 100% sure after just a quick look at the access list. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration

Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well?

As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat ^chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Help to calm down nationalism

In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats (user:Kubura, user:Zenanarth, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks.--Marygiove (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typo at RFAR

I think you missed a "not". [2] —Wknight94 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It certainly was a mistake. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. (see below) I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG

Hi FloNight. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [3]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [4]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Elonka is well known for throwing endless accusation at someone and spinning the truth in order to get support [5]. Regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to take our ruling to heart and reconsider your approach to editing. As mentioned on the case talk page, the Committee thoroughly evaluated your contributions against our core content policies and felt that there were problems. Our independent review of your content additions shows that you need to use more caution when interpreting the texts compared to the sources cited. Your comments about users are not helpful and I ask you to use less inflammatory language when discussing their contributions. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biography of living policy

Is that a slight typo in your edit over at RFARB? I didn't know our policies were living and had biographies? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I know you have ignored me on IRC. You probably will ignore this. I will take it as such unless you respond to this. I am very tired of some arbitrators non-responsiveness.

Simpler things (like a checkuser and subsequent indefinite block) and two arbitration cases among other things have been unsuccessful in resolving this problem. Hence the case.

The harassment have been ongoing since before you registered your account.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NRHP; The Hunt-Morgan House

Hi FloNight -- Welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member.  :) I browsed The Hunt-Morgan House, an article in your recent contributions. It's a nice article. However I got puzzled by how it could have a NPS webpage yet not have a NRHP REFNUM. I suspect there is something general that I do not understand and I have posted a question about it in the Talk page of NRHP, referring to this article. Hope you don't mind. Please feel free to chime in there, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#The Hunt-Morgan House: perhaps a Contributing Propery, how handle it?, if you like, too. And welcome again. cheers, doncram (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your kind comments. I will respond there about the information that I've learned about this property. User:FloNight ^talk 12:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the article?--Appraiser (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Hunt-Morgan House and deleted the re-direct. Sorry for the confusion. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —О бот (т • ц) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)