User talk:FayssalF/Archive AB

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Could I ask a favour, to tie up a few loose ends? Could you review the block of User:כתר and leave a note on their talk page whatever you decide? See User talk:כתר. I'm not happy about Moreschi's "Adieu", the lack of response from the unblock mailing list, the lack of checkuser evidence or even any attempt at such, the demand from Future Perfect for disclosure of previous editing (would be difficult if there wasn't any, and is intrusive in any case). Despite this, ktr was engaging reasonably with Future Perfect, but then the conversation fizzled out. If you could just follow up and explain or talk with ktr and see what you think, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it later this day. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on various things (and sent you an e-mail). I also talked to ktr about the personal attacks, and ktr has apologised for those. I've re-contacted Future Perfect and Moreschi. Would you now consider unblocking for time served? As I said in the e-mail, I'll be away the rest of the weekend, so I'll leave this for you to deal with if you are around later. Carcharoth (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi has replied here, and has indicated he won't stand in the way of an unblock. I think we are very close to finishing this off. I considered unblocking, but as you said you were considering unblocking depending on time served, I thought I'd leave it up to you. Could you let me know what you decide? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (and Carcharoth) for following up on my request. Do you have any thoughts on how I could have handled the original situation more effectively or expeditiously? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Bovlb. I think creating a SSP report or filing a CU request would have been the right and most appropriate thing we could do. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Unfortunately I didn't feel that I had either a basis or the belief required to file at SSP or CU. And I was unsuccessful in persuading the blocking admin to do it. Maybe I could just have filed an "anti-SSP report". :) Bovlb (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fayssal. Thanks for dealing with this. I appreciate you doing this before or just after starting a wikibreak. Bovlb's idea of an anti-SSP report is not such a bad idea. It would be just a normal SSP report, but would in fact report that an admin had blocked for "obvious" sockpuppetry without an SSP or CU case, would contend that it was in fact not so "obvious" as it seems, and would ask others to review it. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock requests

The other matter is that I am still extremely unhappy at MaxSem's unblock reason here: "I'm not even going to look at this incivil and full of assumptions of bad faith request." I've looked at some other of MaxSem's declines, and I'm not impressed. Please note that I mentioned the MaxSem issue at ANI, but it got lost in the ensuing thread. See User talk:SimpsonsFan08 - at first glance that looks like someone abusing the unblock template, but would you be able to say anything about how the admins handled the unblock requests? I've never looked closely at how unblock requests are handled, but what is your opinion on the tone and appropriateness of the following? (I will notify MaxSem of this thread, and I apologise for using his unblocks as an example - if there was a way to do a random sampling of unblock requests, I would do that instead). [1], [2], [3] (yes, I know, but it doesn't look any better down here than it did up there), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Note also the variations in block length - some people reach for the indefinite button immediately, others are more cautious. Now, I'm not saying that all the unblocks should have been granted, but there is a prevailing culture in some areas that is difficult to engage with, and I think unblock requests is one of them. I realise the vast majority of unblock requests need to be declined, but the culture seems to be one of rubber-stamping, and of requiring grovelling to be unblocked, rather than one of fairness and objectivity. I am thinking particularly of this and this. I would also note that some people do really great work in this area, but I'm concerned that using the unblock template has become a bit random - the outcome depends on who turns up to answer the request. Anyway, that's enough for now. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable concern and needs some serious and open discussions between admins and probably a general RfC on the issue without necessarily discussing individual admin actions (as we have AN for that) would be a good start to enhance our blocking process. I will definitely be glad to participate on it as I have a few points to discuss. Probably we can involve a few arbitrators to join the discussion and bring their input.

I may agree with you on the generalities and if you want me to review this case as well I will do of course. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit unfair

I think it's a bit unfair to leave such a comment on the edit summary; It's not like you've been following my progress since the Arbcom back in January (2008).
Anyways, I'm sure no mal-intent was involved and hope we'll be more cooperative and less judgmental in the future (See JzG and the Trout).
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have had no idea that such an edit summary could be felt as bothering. That wasn't a judgment Jaakobou - that is a fact to me as I don't recall you agreed on something before. Why do you feel that it was directed to you? It applies to the other side as well. Right?... because that was what i meant. And if you could make JzG smile then you have no problems with me :)

Seriously, my concerns are exactly the ones I shared with you there and I don't think I was blind in not noticing both sides wrongdoings. How do you guys handle that stress? Listen to my advice and try to dedicate more time to listen to others. And of course, if anyone of you need any help I can assist of course but I don't like doing that in a noisy environment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not fully understanding that the comment was also directed at others. For me, when things get stressful, I turn to WP:NAM which amuses me and take a day off from the article/noise. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit

Hi,

I made this edit on Wikiproject politics. Before I made this your name appeared to be a redlink. If you disapprove of this edit, then please go ahead and revert me (or notify me and I'll self-revert).Bless sins (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bless sins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with Aqaba

Hi there FayssalF! I hope you are doing well. Question for you about how to deal with a naming issue: Originally, our article on Aqaba was only about the one in Jordan. Recently, an editor created Al Aqabah, which was originally about a town in the West Bank. A Jordanian editor edit warred its content away, redirecting it to the Aqaba article on Jordan (In fact, when I stepped into the thing, I thought the article on Al Aqabah was on the Aqaba in Jordan since he had copy-pasted its contents there and I redirected it to Aqaba, but that is not now important).

Anyway, it seems clear that Aqaba should be a disambig page leading to Aqaba, West Bank and Aqaba, Jordan and that Al Aqabah should also be a redirect to the disambig. The editor who created Al Aqabah hasdone this. My only concern is that the way he has done it means that the histories of the pages are lost. Would it better to restore the content originally at Aqaba and Al Aqabah and move these pages to Aqaba, Jordan and Aqaba, West Bank respectively. And then make Aqaba and Al Aqabah into a disambig and redirect, respectively. That might require deleting powers, but that's how I think the page histories can be preserved. Can you help us do this, or offer another suggestion? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

user:PFHLai beat me to it and i only could help in this. I think what you have done is the most appropriate way to do it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to you both. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rama block

Hi. Are you sure blocking Rama was the best course of action? Although use of rollback during edit disputes has been increasingly frowned upon, to block a fellow admin over it without warning is excessive, I feel. [Unless I missed something —I only glanced at the incident] Best, El_C 12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be excessive and I have no problem with unblocking him of course since he's not involved with the issues there. We've just had a friendly exchange of emails where I explained to him my reasons (why using rollback for reverting a content dispute is not a good idea). However, since blocks are preventive (assuming Rama is not causing disruption- the case of Jaakobou and PR is apart) I believe that there is no reason why to keep him blocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds sensible. I'll unblock, then. Incidentally, I support the two other blocks, good call. I'd likely have done the same thing. El_C 12:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Shabiha and User:MezzoMezzo

I see you have already warned both parties appropriately, but you should know that MezzoMezzo also brought it to AN/I [10] DGG (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my page, I understand. I'll alter my editing as advised. And thank you for the advice as well, constructive criticism is always appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I will act accordingly and will Improve my editng pattern.Is there any Option to Stop someone from Continuous Compalining and annoying?thanksShabiha ^(t) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shabiha, not to point fingers to you specifically, but to just emphasize that you acted the same way. To both of you, criticism sections have to exist (except I'd guess for articles like [Sun] or [Moon] and similar or to specific instances as per WP:BLP). It shoudl not be any criticism though as per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V. I am glad that you both are promissing to improve your editing ways. Happy editing.

By the way, you can just ignore what I've just said and get some insight from WP:AGF. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Meatwaggon

Meatwaggon has been deleting well sourced content from the gunpowder article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=209645260&oldid=209642793
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=209390826&oldid=209385477
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=209645260&oldid=209642793

Meatwaggon followed an IP with a similar edit pattern:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder&diff=209289408&oldid=209057289

He has also written uncivil replies like this post, in which he writes: 'Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement.'

I request you to take appropriate administrative action. Editing gunpowder has become strenuous and scary.

Vtria 08 (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have checked the the diffs above and find them alarming. I will not warn the user this time as he hasn't edited since yesterday. If he reverts without discussing please let me now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About this edit: It might not have been in the best of taste. I was under a lot of pressure due to Meatwaggon's constant bullying. I'll watch it from now on. Vtria 08 (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Meatwaggon is revert warring on gunpowder again. Vtria 08 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of intimidation and accusations by user:Meatwaggon

• While editing on gunpowder, I came across an IP that deleted sourced content (Arabs and Europe) and did so with an edit summary: "Undid entries clearly against the evidence presented in the rest of the article." User:Meatwaggon soon followed, making exactly the same edits (i.e. deleting Arabs and Europe).

• Upon inviting me to 'talk' after undoing my edits, Meatwaggon had this to say to me:

• I invite you to discuss any changes that are clearly against the grain of the rest of the article before you make any further revisions, regardless of your claimed source.

Is it possible to assume good faith after listing to that? Especially since the quotes from my "claimed source" have been lying in my profile since 22 April 2008. Meatwaggon claimed that "I looked over your profile already, long before tonight."

• Upon my pointing out that he followed an IP, he retorted by accusing me of being a sockpuppet (the only other editors to have been here are Pyrotech and Amman Shaker so there is no evidence any sock activity other than that of Meatwaggon). Right after then he says: Besides the fact that the statements you quoted are in serious contradistinction to the evidence and sources presented in the rest of the article, which to me sounds like the reasoning given by the IP: "Undid entries clearly against the evidence presented in the rest of the article."

These two sure talk like the same person.

Evidence of violation of WP:Civil by user: Meatwaggon

• your feeble attempt to sound ecumenical notwithstanding, as if that was somehow going to fool anybody.
• Oh, if I could only convey the depths of my amusement at this statement.
• he seems to be doing a bang-up job so far.
• I could also easily make an idiotic parade of your own recent diarrhea of edits to this page.
• so ignoring your idiotic attempts at caricaturization.

I find that really disturbing, even for the internet. I request you to please prevent him from attacking other Wikipedians.

Sincere Regards, Vtria 08 (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Highly active

Just so you know, I added your name to User:Useight/Highly Active as an editor in Africa. Just letting you know! Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you :) though I used to be active. Less now. But would not hesitate to help in case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Skype chat

Hi, would you be free for a Skype chat with Jaakobou tomorrow? He's requesting I set up a call with a few people and you're someone he'd very much like to talk to. He wants to be sure he's on the right side of site standards when he returns. E-mail me and I'll give you my Skype screen name. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Durova. I have been away for a couple of days. I will also be very busy for a couple of weeks (business trip) but will be available afterwards for a Skype chat. I will still be able to read messages here or via email. Regards. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking confusion

I dont understand, why am I blocked? I have never vandalised Wikipedia in my life in fact its the first time i've ever used it! Whats with all the warnings? Is it a shared IP Adress or something?

Proposed deletion of Mneseus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mneseus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - sorry, but I can't see any point to this article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:FayssalF/JK

Perhaps you could look at my last two posts re anon IPs editing in sock manner and Check user request as per your guidelines. thanks. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/AF and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

John Coltrane

I'm not sure if you are still interested in this topic, but I think you'll find this interesting. Jazz critic Ben Ratliff published a book in 2007, Coltrane: The Story of a Sound. In it, he suggests that Hazrat Inayat Khan greatly influenced Coltrane's approach to music. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas and thanks for the info. Do you have access to some citations? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A few. Are you offering me some more, or would you like to look at them? Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure Viriditas. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Libya

Libya has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Libya

Libya has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Moroccan Arabic

Salaam, as you can see on my userpage an anonymous user has added some statement behind your reply. Do you have any idea what it means or who the user is? Thanks Mallerd (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes :) He is an active user at es.wiki where he was blocked indefinitely with a message at his userpage stating that "Este usuario ha sido expulsado de Wikipedia en español." On the fr.wiki you could find an indef block notice on his talk page stating that "Compte bloqué indéfiniment pour contournement de blocage et vandalismes systématiques."

Well, this guy is the only Spanish user whose sole mission is to remove all references to Morocco as being a country with a long history where many dynasties have governed. He believes that the country is new (1956) and forgets to argue about the same when it comes to History of Italy and History of Spain itself. He confuses the territory with the notion of the State.

In fact, he is not disrupting a lot since he comes here once a month or so. Everytime he comes back he gets himself reverted by someone (in many occasions by respected Spanish users here) but the blame is always on me according to him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Sorry to bother you about this again, but you have yet to update your information at Highly Active Users. If you do not update your entry, it will be removed within 48 hours. Thanks. Useight (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Useight. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SLR

Hello, SLR related admins seems to be on break, there is active edit warring going on about the project page. Can you help edit protect it till we resolve the issues please. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A comment about the removal of ones name from the signatories list (even under "no-show or inactive" section of the) would be really helpful on the talk . Thanks very much Watchdogb (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

I'm interested to get a view on why exactly there is such a large jump from the restriction to a topic ban, when there was never any clarification on the restriction in the first place. Do you have the same opinion as Kirill Lokshin (that I should be restricted because other people cause drama when I'm around) or do you believe that I have truly have tried to push the wording of the restriction to its limits?

I really haven't done anything to try to get around it. The first thing I did "wrong" was list some articles for a single user to look over with a suggestion of redirecting them. I guess it wasn't the smartest thing to try, but there were no actions taken on it. I assumed that if single talk pages were fine outlets, that would be fine as well. Later, I was blocked for one week for removing content from articles, which was somehow interpreted to be deletion. I believe that lead to the first request for clarification. The original reason for the block seemed to have been thrown out, and it was later sustained because I had reverted two times on one of those articles (which seems rather steep to me). This is the start of the overall confusion.

I was later blocked for two weeks because I had started a few discussions on a project talk page and a noticeboard related to getting some articles merged. The reason for the block was the confusing wording of the restriction. At this point, I am still under the impression that I am able to do that based upon the restriction's wording. It seems that working with editors was supposed to be the goal. The second request for clarification was started at around the same time. It just seems rather strange that instead of just trying to help clarify for someone who is just mainly confused, all of you have just taken the route of "silencing" the side that has some small complaints about it (including the rather random proposal involving KWW). Also, is the current wording just for an indefinite topic ban or for the remainder of the initial restriction? TTN (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi TTN. In fact you are saying it above. You have not been patient enough. Also, do you think that a clarification, after 2 long cases and a couple of blocks and different set of measures being tried, could really help? And yes it is considered an indefinite topic ban. There are ban appeals but you have to show good signs of change in the future. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does he become automatically "guilty" because he was involved in two arbcom cases? We only had the second case because the first one didn't help us, at all. It's hard to figure out how to handle some situations, but that should never be used against the editor himself.

Do you honestly believe that his block, based on what namespace he was posting in, and for an action that no one was clear about if he was allowed to do or not, is evidence of TTN doing something wrong? Did you not notice that he was unblocked because he said he would refrain from action before getting clarification? Let me repeat that again, Did you not notice that he was unblocked because he said he would refrain from action before getting clarification? . What problem are you trying to fix with this topical ban?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that TTN was acting in good faith? Never once was it shown he was acting in bad faith, and never once before the second case was he even blocked as an editor for his actions. He followed the rules and did what he thought was right. You guys gave him a restriction, and even before the case was closed we pointed out time and time again that it wasn't clear about several things. On May 4th TTN commented on the request for clarification, asking up front what his restrictions meant, and you guys ignored it. How on earth can you fault him for something like starting a thread on a notice board in the project namespace when you refuse to tell him if he's allowed to do it or not. He asked you, point blank, if he could do it, and got no response for weeks. Other editors who were working with TTN to help him improve told him he was allowed to do it. When he did it didn't become an issue, and the discussion never got out of hand.

How is TTN supposed to appeal his ban in the future when he was already showing improvement when he got banned? How is it that he's getting punished for things that he was never reprimanded of before? Since when has his participation in discussion ever been an issue? It never was. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed the other points. As fot the appeal, anyone can appeal his ban in the future and you may probably be his mentor if you want. He is still allowed to edit freely the other thousands areas and that would be an apportunity for you to guide him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if I'm to get this right, the reason that you strongly agree with a topic ban is because I didn't stop editing for three weeks to wait for someone to write a single solitary paragraph explaining the restriction (correct me if I'm wrong)? That hardly fits my definition of being impatient. Ignoring the fact that both times I was blocked were due to slightly different interpretations than mine, how does that jump so far from being restricted to a topic ban? That's what I am not understanding. I have tried to work with what I was given in perfectly good faith. The idea was that I use talk pages, so I used talk pages. The problem was that it is easy to interpret the restriction in twenty different ways. That's why clarification would have helped greatly. TTN (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not talk about the past. Tell me about your plans. Convince me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to butt in here, but you're considering his ban based on "the past", and a past that was rather recent. Are you asking him "what would you do now?" if the same situation came up? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that the "past" is only a few weeks ago, and directly relates to this, it seems rather weird to ignore it. If you're talking about future regular editing, I'll continue to be just as adamant in getting fiction cleaned up, but I'll just have to not attempt to force anything, yield to local consensus longer and more often, and apply whatever basic standards are in effect now before doing much (such as placing cleanup tags for some arbitrary amount of time). So basically, if this doesn't pass and the restriction ends, I'll do what I was doing, but more slowly and "cleanly." TTN (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've just opined on the matter here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry from me as well

Re: this. Are you referring to the general warning, or are you under the impression that I have been specifically named at some point? The only Arbcom case I have ever been a party to was as a complainant in the Sadi Carnot case.Kww (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kww. Yes I have no doubt that you have been instructed and warned a couple of months ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understood the general warning to apply to all. Your phrasing in your vote made it sound as if you were thinking of something aimed specifically at me.

Certainly wish I could understand why discussing the appropriate way to treat the creation of articles that violate policy is being considered an "attempt to inflame the situation." I suppose it has something to do with our views being diametrically opposed ... I consider actions like undoing the redirects that were in place before the arbcom freeze, creating ANI and Arbcom reports on people that have not violated the terms of their Arbcom sanctions, and threatening to perform mass unredirection of articles that still don't pass to be attempts to inflame the situation. I hold a similar opinion towards admins that have stretched the interpretations of sanctions beyond the breaking point, and towards admins that believe that "short blocks up to a week" can be interpreted as "two week blocks".

I've been in favor of maintaining status quo on the existing articles, neither creating new redirects or undoing redirects unless the article was repaired prior to undoing the redirect. I do feel, and thought that I was free to state as much in policy discussions, that editors that repeatedly create articles on fictional topics that have no third-party sourcing should be treated to a succession of stiffer and stiffer warnings followed up by blocks, i.e., treated as we treat any other disruptive editors or vandals. It would certainly solve the underlying problem more effectively than anything that has been tried to date.Kww (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question suffer a lot because of the opposing views. It is for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations. It is for the best of the general atmosphere. There are really plenty of areas where your actions may be useful, but not here - at least for the moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations.", I'm sorry, but arbcom is not the one dealing with these situations, and you guys shouldn't be making these kinds of assumptions. Arbcom is making very uninformed decisions in relation to our case.

We were making progress in how TTN handles things, and we asked for clarification, because Lord knows the guy isn't going to be perfect over night. The only reason TTN got blocked or had an ANI thread in these last few weeks was because arbcom ignored our request. It was sitting there for so long that we went and made a second one. TTN told you guys on May 4th that he would do exactly what you told him to do, and he told you that he wasn't clear on several issues and wanted help.

He gets two blocks in gray areas, pleads for clarification both times, and you guys jump out of your chairs to do a total topical ban. Kirill fired off those proposals with bad assumptions on everyone (including myself, who he was dead wrong about), and with a hot head. The proposed topical ban for Kww should be a huge red flag to Kirill's laps in judgement there.

This last block, especially, needs to be clarified, regardless if TTN gets a topical ban or not. The only reason TTN got blocked was because he started a thread, rather than replied to an existing one, that was to a notice board in the project namespace (so basically he wouldn't have gotten blocked for starting a thread in the user name space). Several of us, including those on opposing extremes of the debate, were under the impression that he was simply restricted to direct action, and that he was not only allowed to discuss, but was encouraged to do so. Even if TTN's ideas in discussion were flawed, his participation in those discussions would help him understand why. He wasn't being disruptive at all in those discussions, and no one was even getting worked up. It was not until days later, after (and because of) the block did things turn heated. So why is it that this action has lead to a topical ban?

Can you not understand our honest confusion here? -- Ned Scott 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I may understand the confusion Ned. However, at least, when I get confused, I hit the 'preview' button and most of the time I end up asking before acting or else I do nothing. And I really don't remember TTN approaching me personally asking for clarifying his past resolution. Now, when he got into troubles, he is. Do you still see any assumption on my part when I say people not being able to be patient?

My real assumption is that someday TTN would understand that and that would be the right time to let him back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After his first block, before the second block, he asked this:

"Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

My own emphases added.

What happened between that time and now? He got blocked because he started a thread on Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, which a lot of us, including myself, were totally under the impression he was allowed to do that. That's all. Nothing about the discussion was disruptive, he wasn't being rude, nada. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you personally, since no one wants to answer the question. Was TTN breaking his restriction by starting a thread on a discussion page that happened to be on the project namespace? -- Ned Scott 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are showing me TTN May 4th message where he seems to be confused and asking about if he's permitted to edit more than:

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Passed 9 to 1 at 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Does that mean that he missed the ArbCom message of March 10th? As you see, there was no mention to 'templates'. Your emphasis is only one of the multiple questions that have already got an answer.

Whatever is the case. I am discussing this with him as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We assumed edits to the project namespace meant XfDs or some kind of formal merge type discussions. The edit to the fict notice board wasn't formal at all, and was no different than any other talk page notice. TTN is not the only one asking you this, I am asking you this. I'm not playing games with you, I'm not trying to push things to the limit here, I'm asking a simple question, because I, as an editor in good standing, who's reasonably intelligent, was not under the impression that the case restrictions meant he couldn't start a thread on the FICT notice board. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is just right there...He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

The above ruling was set to give TTN a minimal right to remain active. And you remember well Ned that I gave more time to decide upon Case 2. I also wanted to explicitly refer and point out to Case 1 because nobody was happy with having a second case. That is because it is not normal to have plenty of cases for one area. It should stop somewhere and you already know that we can't fix it for you unless you want ArbCom to decide on content (including merge, deletion process, etc...). But at least the ArbCom can reduce tensions and problematic scenarios prompted by users.

P.S. I have never declined to respond to anyone in Wikipedia and TTN or yourselves could have simply come to this space since you are telling me others couldn't reply. By the way, TTN still owes me a reply for my question above.

I am ready to shorten the duration of the topic ban for both TTN and Kww but you do not have to prove to me that people were confused since everyone is not a newbie and therefore I have valid and strong reasons to apply the ignorantia legis neminem excusat principle on everyone involved in this case. We are heading for case 3 I suppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. While I don't agree that it's a rationale restriction (since, again, TTN was not problematic in discussion), I at least have a better understanding of the restriction. I honestly appreciate that you are giving us a chance to explain. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tailoring restrictions on individual levels is tiresome and we all know that we are here to apply protective measures and not punitive. There were incidents on talk pages prior to case 2. Probably that is were we disagree.

Now, I need guarantees. I don't want to get back to this particular issue. "Because an appeal makes logical sense is no guarantee that it will work." -- William Bernbach. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that we were supposed to read that sentence as He is free to contribute on the talk pages ... [if the discussion was] initiated by another editor. That's not what you said. You said he was free to contribute on talk pages. The only thing modified by "'initiated by another editor is his participation in xFD, DRV, and the like.

As for guarantees, I think the only guarantee anyone can make is that if Arbcom continues to prevent policy enforcement while supporting policy violations, the problem will continue to fester. Kww (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything apart from citing the ArbCom ruling.

I don't understand what you mean by supporting policy violations. What does that have to do with guarantees related to TTN? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The people bringing TTN to Arbcom have not been reporting violations. He has been brought back for enforcement five or six times, and has violated his restriction only once (and that one was debatable, as Ned is doing, on the question of whether a noticeboard is a talk page or a project page). I believe that they have been bringing him to Arbcom specifically to drive him away, making it easier for them to continue in their path of creating articles that are not supported by third-party sourcing. The creation of articles not supported by third-party sourcing is the underlying violation that this case is about.

If you must sanction anyone, the appropriate people to sanction in this latest round are editors like Pixelface, who brings stale, resolved issues to Arbcom in order to try to get sanctions placed on editors that remove unsourced material; editors that threaten to undo existing redirects en masse, and admins that make blocks that violate the wording of arbcom sanctions, which is why I brought this clarication to Arbcom in the first place.

Instead, you are sending a very wrong message. The message you are sending is If you whine to Arbcom Enforcement often enough, we will block your opponent just to get you out of our hair. If anyone complains about it, we will nominate him for an indefinite topic ban. Not a good message.

I notice that you haven't answered my question below. Have you been unable to find any cases of impatience and disruptive editing on my part supporting a six-month topic ban?Kww (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The "similar discussion initiated by another editor" is separated from the other two, rather than "He can contribute on talk page discussions and XfDs initiated by other editors", which signifies that it is its own separate thing. You may have meant it to be the way you described, but you certainly can't say that my interpretation anywhere close to wrong. If that is what was meant, that's fine. It just needs to be clarified. TTN (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One more question

Your quote above anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations confuses me, and I really would like clarification as to why you think I should be forced to basically stop editing for 6 months (note that the topic ban is not over fiction, it is over all forms of art: films, movies, TV, music, characters, and by easy extension, actors and actresses, and includes any comments, which would include policy relating to them ... that's a huge swath of the encyclopedia). When have I shown signs of impatience? I discuss policy (including policy about fiction), and I try to maintain the status quo on existing redirects until there is a stable policy that says that the underlying articles are permissible or not. I protested when admins made interpretations of sanctions that could not be justified under the text of the sanctions, and I protested when people brought complaints to Arbcom that seemed to be for the purpose of getting their opponents blocked or banned, as opposed to being sincere reports of actual violations. At what point did I show signs of impatience?

I've just opined on the matter here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the change in stance. I do disagree that a clarification isn't in order. The language of the sanction does not prevent TTN from initiating discussions on talk pages. If that's what you intended to say, the sanction should be reworded to say so. Much of the discussion has not been specifically about TTN's actions, it has been about punitive blocking that did not align with the language of the sanction. It's important for onlookers, enforcing admins, Arbcom, and TTN that the language of the sanction match the intent of the sanction.Kww (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Vandalism at the Van Resistance

I have seen your name involving with the page Van Resistance. The article had controversial positions, which there is an author that acts against the WP:CIVIL. Takes VP:CON actions. He constantly revers the page to user:Hetoum I version, which is clearly had issues. At the minimum level, citations were not standard. It is impossible to know where the claims are originated. The language has problems with the "Fairness of tone." The article is filled with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, the editor included personal commentary such "treacherously murdered." Is it possible to being murdered non-"treacherously?" This is a violation of representation without a bias. Also it is impossible to know which sentences belong to Editor (An IP number replaced a previous editor), which belongs to cited source. I fixed some of the format issues at this version [11], without adding or removing text, but then other editors begin to WP:OWN the article and reverted my additions. Some of the issues have been mentioned in the Talk:Van Resistance page. Would you intervene with this page again. --Seemsclose (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

jacko999

why was my image been deleted i do own the copyright i made it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.172.98 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably but there is a difference between creating an image for yourselves and using a copyrighted image you may have created but belonging to someone else (i.e. institutions such as Macks Solicitors). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i work for macks solicitors i asked permission before i posted it and got the go ahead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacko999 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Klaksonn SSP

Regarding that whole issue, should I go forward and formally request a checkuser now? And are we running this specifically on Klaksonn's old contribs? I've never done this before so I have no idea how it works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything is explained at WP:RFCU. There's a template there that you have to fill in. By the way, MezzoMezzo, your name has been brought up and involved in a few disputes and that is really not a good thing. You may be wrong, you may be right but it is important to remain calm and to make sure you abide by NPOV policy. We have already talked about this a few weeks ago. Please, edit carefully and discuss your edits in a calm way. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with this. I'll try to cool off and give some thought to how i've dealt with disputes in the past. So far what i've been doing hasn't worked very well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take this as a promise from your part. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Barack Obama

Could you please undo your full protection of this template per the protection policy. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 12:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Me

Hello. FayssalF, please tell me what I did wrong. Apart from my temper and my comments, which were provoked by MezzoMezzo and Causteau's incivility as you might have seen in the edit summaries, I didn't vandalize nor did I impose my POV. I did, earlier, in the Al-Azhar University article, mention that Saladin converted Egyptians by force because I thought this was the case, then I found that they converted without any uproar and I added a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica which Costeau repeatedly removed. I also added a sourced passage to Amr ibn al As which was removed sometime ago and was repeatedly reverted by MezzoMezzo until he was told to cease, and I removed the terrorist categories in the articles of Hezbollah members, some of whom had never carried a gun. Tell me if I did anything wrong that MezzoMezzo and Causteau didn't do. I haven't been causing disruption, unlike the two users who are imposing their opinions on the articles. NAccount (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi NAccount. I have received your email to which I have just responded. I've also cross-posted parts of my response here. I hope that answers questions of everyone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks FayssalF, but when I asked for a second chance, I hoped you would actually spare the other accounts and block NAccount. I only need Carticus and Nasrulana because in no way have I been abusing these accounts. I have made only constructive edits using them. After sending you the e-mail, I didn't expect you to list all the accounts. NAccount (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)